.
The Attorney General of Texas
May 1, 1979
M.4RK WHITE
Attorney General
Bonorable Steve Simmons Opinion No. MB-15
Diitrict Attorney
Rl Paso County Courthouse Re: Whether the commissioners
El Paso, Texas court is required to approve
salaries designated by the juvenile
board under article 5142b.
,Dear Mr. Simmons:
You have asked if the commissioners court of a county operating under
article 51424 V.T.C.S., is required to approve the budget for compensation
of juvenile probation officers submitted by the juvenile board.
Article 5142b provides in part:
Section 3. . . . The number of such Assistant
Probation Officers shalt be determined by the
Juvenile Boards subject to the approval of the
Commissioners Court, provided such power of
appointment and confirmation shall become effective
immediately upon final passage of this Act, and the
budget shall be amended, if necessary, to provide
sufficient funds for the operation of this Act.
....
Section 5. The compensation of all probation
officers shall be fixed by the Juvenile Board subject
to the approval of the County Commissioners Court,
which shall be not less than Three Thousand, Six
Hundred Dollars ($3,600) per annum for the Chief
Probation Officer, and not less than One Thousand,
Eight Hundred Dollars ($l,800) per annum for
Assistants or Deputies
An identical statutory formulation, article 332a, V.T.C.S., WRS
considered in Attorney General Opinion H-908 (1976). There it was said that
the salaries set by the appointing officer were not final but were conditioned
p- 43
. -
Honorable Steve’ Simmons - Page Two (NW-15 )
upon the approval of the commissioners court. While the commissioners court could not
fix a salary itself, it could disapprove a salary fixed by the appointing officer. We believe
the language of article 5142b requires the same result. See also Attorney General Opinion
H-1296 (1978).
It has been suggested that Commissioners Court of Hays County v. District Judge,
22nd Judicial District of Hays County, 506 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1974, writ
ref’d n.r.e.); Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ.
Appl - Amarillo 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.) and Attornev General Ooinion M-393 (1969) reouire
an opposite result. Each involved the appointment of adult‘ probation officers under
section 10 of article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, and each concluded that the
commissioners court was not authorized to reject a budget submitted by the district judge
unless the budget was so unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious that it would amount to an
abuse of discretion. The language relating to the commissioners court’s duty in those
cases’was ambiguous, and in each instance the Attorney General or the courts relied on
the rest of the act to ascertain the legislative intent. The statute specifically indicated
that this purpose was to place responsibility for probation supervision wholly within the
state courts. There is neither a similar ambiguity in article 5142b nor similar language
which would broaden the responsibility of the juvenile board.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that a commissioners court operating under 5142b has
the authority to decline to approve a budget for compensation of juvenile probation
officers submitted by the juvenile board.
SUMMARY
Under article 5142b, V.T.C.S., the budget for compensation of
juvenile probation officers submitted by the juvenile board is
subject to the approval of the commissioners court.
y$?gTLg
Attorney General of Texas.
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR
First Assiit~t Attorney General
TED L. HARTLEY
Executive Assiitant Attorney General
Prepared by C. Robert Heath
Assistant Attorney General
p- 44
Honorable Steve Simmons - Page Three (MW-15)
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
C. Robert Heath, Chairman
David B. Brooks
Scott Garrison
Rick Gilpin
‘William G Reid
Bruce Youngblood
p. 45