Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-1074 Page: 3 of 9
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 3 (JM-1074)
scope of the express or necessarily implied power. Cosby v.
County Commissioners of Randall County, 712 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.
App. - Amarillo 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Where a right is
conferred or a duty imposed, the commissioners court is
given broad discretion to accomplish the purposes intended.
Attorney General Opinion JM-350 (1985) (citing Anderson v.
Wood, supra).
As you observe in your brief, the implied powers of the
commissioners court must necessarily flow from some express
grant of authority. Where the actions of the commissioners
court can be aligned with specific statutory authority, the
courts allow the commissioners substantial latitude in
achieving the statutory objective. See, e.g., Cosby v.
County Commissioners of Randall County, supra (commissioners
court had implied authority under former V.T.C.S. articles
1603 and 2351(7) to demolish and replace existing former
courthouse); Schope v. State, 647 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. App. -
Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd) (authority under
former V.T.C.S. article 2372w to adopt order requiring all
sexually oriented businesses to obtain permit from county
sheriff). However, where the power sought to be exercised
has no legal basis, the commissioners court has no implied
authority to act. See, e.g., Canales v. Laughlin, supra
(commissioners court had no power to appoint a "county road
unit administrative officer" since no statute authorized the
creation of such an office); Starr County v. Guerra, 297
S.W.2d 379 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1956, no writ)
(employment of county commissioner as road commissioner
contrary to commissioner's oath of office and former
V.T.C.S. articles 6737 and 6762).
You acknowledge the absence of express statutory
provisions granting the commissioners court the power to
create a county payroll department, yet you contend such
authority may be implied from section 115.021 of the Local
Government Code. Section 115.021 directs that the commis-
sioners court shall "audit and settle all accounts against
the county and shall direct the payment of those accounts."
Attorney General Opinion JM-192 (1984) concluded that
commissioners court approval of salaries was required by the
statutory predecessor of section 115.021 before salary
warrants could be issued. See also Attorney General Opinion
JM-986 (1988). You conclude that the commissioners court
has implied authority to establish a payroll department to
the extent one is necessary for the approval of claims.
The power of the commissioners court to establish
agencies to assist the court is also subject to familiar and
well-established rules. The commissioners court has impliedp. 5591
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-1074, text, July 26, 1989; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth273512/m1/3/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.