The Attorney Geqeral of Texas
September 5, 1978
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable George N. Rodriguez, Jr. Opinion No. H- 12 37
County Attorney
Rl Paso County Re: Whether a county may pay
Room 201 City-County Building claims for supplies and services
Rl Paso, Texas 79901 rendered to the-Sheriff’s Depart-
ment without a purchase order
when the commissioners court
has issued e written order that
.‘theclaimbepaid.
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
You have requested our opinion on a question involving payment of a
claim for supplies and services rendered to the county.
You state that a number of vendors provided supplies and services to
the sheriff’s department, but failed to comply with article 1580, Y.T.C.S., as
oooatmdwwsulmnz amended, Acts l975,64th Deg., ch. 294, S 1, et 748, applicable to all counties
Lubmdl.lx.7mol with a population in excess of 74,000. Article 1580 establishes the county
oow4?-oza purt?hasing agent, an officer not under the supervision of the commissioners
court, as the proper party to contract for all county supplies and services
except those required to be let on competitive bid. The statute prohibits any
other perkon from entering into such contracts and directs the county auditor
not to drew warrants “for any purchases except by such agent and those made
by competitive bid.” In the situation you pose, the commissioners court has
by written order directed payment of the claims, but the auditor has refused
to comply.
We considered an almost identical question in Attorney General Opinion
I-I-482 (19741,and concluded that, where a contract fails to comply with
article 1580 because the county purchasing agent is not a party thereto, the
county auditor is prohibited from drawing a warrant for the contract. The
authority of the commissioners court to regulate county fiscal matters has
been circumscribed by article 1580, and since the court was powerless to
make the contract initially, it was equally powerless to ratify it.
In our opinion, the same result is applicable here. The commissioners
court is not authorized to order payment of a claim under a contract made in
P. 4934
Honorable George N. Rodriguez, Jr. - Page 2 (H-1237)
violation of article 1580, and the auditor is prohibited from paying such a claim.
But see Wyatt Metal & Boiler Works v. Pennin Count& 111S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex.
Civ. App. - Texarkana 1937, writ dism’d); Attorney General Opinion H-482 (1974).
SUMMARY
The commissioners court is not authorized to direct payment
of e claim under a contract which contravenes article 1580,
and the county auditor is prohibited from paying such a
claim.
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
Gpiion Committee
m
p. 4935