OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable W. A. 'Bill" Bundy, Ohaimmn
B1oemosyI3Arynlvertigrtlngcoaittee
House of Reprseezatstivea
Austin, Texas
Desr Sir:
letter of Awrt S,
6 depaeaiult touahing
roaepted the
*ViWd civil at8tUtW Of %XW, pl’OVid.0
lleotion OF appointmentby the Bow3 of'
t of l Sta te horpitalr
8haJ.lelmt a mperintmndont
the olaas of perron oonmltted to his ahmge.
The term of offioo -11 be two pare, subject
to removal 8~ the Board for Rood eauar)."
Honorable1. A. "Bill" Bundy, Page 2
In Kno%, et al v. Johnmon, 141 9. Y. (2d) 698, vrit
rmfumad, It warnheld that the muperlntendentof a State hompltal,
appointedby the Board of Control purmuant to the provi8Iona of
ArtIole 691, SUPM, im UI offloer of tha.State of Texas; that
the Board of Control 18 purely an adrtnimtratlveagenoy of the
state Ooverrnmmntof leglmlatlvaoreatlan;and that the Board of
Control oannot affeot tha removal of muah offlaer exoept in oom-
plla.noevith the mandate of the ConatltutlonrequlrIng a trial
in a oourt of oompetant jurladiatl;onwith a judlaial detmaina-
tlon of whether good aaume exlmtm Tor muoh removal,
There 11, of oourme, a dImtlnbtIonbetween thm m-oon-
mlderatlm of an appointmant to an offla?,,,and a ra~val from
euah offloe. 9he former arlmem whanthe oolleatlvebody In which
a paver of appointmnt ham been vented axperlanaeaa ahango of
hm&rt vlth reapeot to Its meleotIoaand demirea to re-oonalder
and rescind the appoiatment. In the oars of a removal from ot-
floe, it im admIttad that the title to tha office ham vemtad In
the appointee and that ha ham antaa~d upon and rightfullyhold8
the office, the effort being to forfeit him title to the oftloe
and oumt hIm therefror.
The great velght of authority in the Unfted Statem 18
that an appointmentonoe made 18 mvoaable and not aubjeot to
re-oonaideratlon. It vam early demlazed in the oame of' Jtwtnwy
v. Madleon, 1 Craaah 137, 2 L. Ed. 608
"8aae point of time mat be takan vhan
the paver of the axeautlva over an offloer,
not removable at him will, mat aeaae. Phat
point of time mnmt be whe+xtha Conmtitutlonal
povar of appoInWant ham been ueroimetl. And
thlm power ham been exerolaed when tha lamt
aot, raqulred from the puBon poeaeealng the
paver, haa been performed."
The gene=1 rule 18 atatad In 8aofIald v. 8tarr, 78
Oonn. 636, 63 Atl. 512, 513:
%a appointmnt of an oftloer, onoa made,
cannot be revoked by the l ppolntlng paver, unleaa
permlmmible under the power of M)BOVOL. Thla is
true oi appointment m mmtlmby a 8 e efemutive,
an exxeoutiveboard, a oourt, or aY eglmlatIva
body or board."
262
HonorableM. A. "Bill" Bundy, Page 3
In Coaler v. Tamer, 234 1. P. 9. 571, 580, it VM
maids
"By the charter and ordInanoeabove refer-
red to, the appointeesfor ammemaorm hold for a
definite term. Upon taking the oath of orfloe,
the title to the office vests in the appoInteea.
Once the aat of appolntmmntIs perform& the ap-
pointee oompliea vith the requIrementaof a mtat-
ute by taking him oath of offloe, him appointmant
ia Irrmvomable."
The same of State Ex rel v. Tyrrell, 158 Vim. 425, 149
y. X. 280, Annotated Cases 1916E, 270, Involved the appointment
zt;ty attorney by the cop1l011 oounail purmuant to tha oity
. With reference thereto, the Supremm Court of WIsoon&In
maid:
“Moreover,after the mleatioa o? relator,
aooeptanoe of the ofilce and qualIfIontIonby
hia, the oounoll %d no power to reconsider
and eleot another.
It should be pointed out In this tionneotlonthat thm
umm of the tena "eleot' In Article 691, mapra, rather than the
vord "appolnt,"18 of no mIgnIfIoanoein the matter before us.
In the oaae just mentioned, it w&a maid that thm Power
of the oounoll with rempeat $0 the appointaentvam the same whether,
the tern "elect" or "anoint was used, and that, althorrghthe
aharterused the term e&&t," the powervam In resllty an appoint-
ing paver. See also Congsr v. Ollrer, 32 Cal. 76.
The.Kentuolcyaame of Board of Eduoatloa v. MaChemnmy,
235, Ky. 692, 32 s. Y. (26) 26, Involved the ration of the!board
in appolatlng a county superintendenton April 5, 1930, for the
ton of one year beginn~ July 1, 1930. At a meeting of the
board held on June 7, 1930, the board attempted to resalnd it8
action takmn In April and to revoke the appointment. After reoog-
Illa that prospeative appointmentsto ofi'loe, -do within a rea-
SOnab
9 e tlm In advanoe of the time a vaoancy will arise, are gen-
*rally deemed valid, the court maldc
me a ** The board of eduaationham nothing
to d0 with induoting Into off100 the psrmon chosen
by it to be oounty mupmrlntmadmnt~ xtm fua%mtIon
Ronoreble#. A. "Bill" Bundy, Page 4
is Nly perforimedvhen It makes the oholoe.
The muperintendentmerely takes the oath and
ammu.Qtmm the duties of the office. I)l *,
When a power 1s given and ham been exeralmed,
and the rmpomltory of the paver ham no further
aontrol over the aubjeat, except to remove the
appointee for oaume, the appointingpaver is
exhausted and mmy not be reaoneldered, IS the
pover belongs to a board, Its aat is aom@ete
when the meting ham adjourned. What rmmmlnm
to he done to complete the ocaupatioaof the
office must be done by the appointee and not
by the appofntlw paver. l l l. IlaOhemneyv.
Sampson, 232 IQ. 395, 23 S. W. (26) 584; Grove v.
rates, 219 Ky. 49, 292 9. W. 483. An appolnt-
sent to offlae onoe eospleted is irrevocable.
46 0. J. p. 954, 8 69. It Is omleted when
the last aot of the appointing authority ham
been acooqplimhed. Harburyv. Nadirnon,1
Cranah, 137, 2 L. Ed. 60; People v. Caaneau,
20 Oal. 5031 Btate v. Barbour, 53 Corm. 76, 22
A, 686 55 &a. Rep. 65; State v. Starr, 78
Cona. &36, 63 A. 5121 Speed v. Detroit, 97
Hiah. 198, 56 I. W. 57Oj &tight v. Love, 39
f. J. Lav, 14, affirmed 39 I. J. Law, 476, 23
Am. Rep. 2341 Wltherrpoon v. State, 138 IUrns.
310, 103 so. 134. An appointment,In some
oamem, la held to beoome absolute vhea the
result ham been aaoertal.ned mnd announoed.
State v. Starr, 78 Oonn. 636, 63 A. 512;
Baker v. Cuahmn, 127 Ibaa, 1051 Garpenter
v. Bprague, 45 R. I. 29, 119 A. 5611 Stat@
v. Bmrbour, 53 Corm. 76, 22 A. 686, 55 Am.
Rep. 65. ln othmrm, It 1s not ooqpleted
until terminationof the me&inn at vhlah the
appotitwnt la made. Allen v, iiorton# 94 Ark.
405, 127 8. W. 450. l l “.*
From the facts stated In your question, it appears that
the appolnmnt of the mupkrlntendentIn quertlon bra beon flnal-
15 Oowpleted. There r-ins nothing elre to be don, by the Board
Of Control. The appointeeham aooepted the appointment, tmken
the ocrth of office, end mmdr the roquisltebond. He avaltm only
the arrival of September 1, 1941, to eatep upon the term of of-
floe for vhiah he vam appointed. And the terms of office of the
members of the appointing power, the Board of Control, vill ex-
tend beyong this date,
mnonble M. A. %ll" Bandy, page 5
Under theme S8ot8, It 18 thm opinion of thla depart-
-t that the appointrantof muoh muperintendeat18 Irrevoaable
and that the Board 0s Control 18 without legal authority to re-
monmlderits aotlon, remaind the appointmoatmade, and appoint
an&her superintendent.
Yours very trul+
ATTOHURY @EUERAL OF TXA8