THE ATTORSEY GESERAL 

OF TEXAS 

December 27, 1990 

Honorable Terry D. McEachern Opinion No. JM-1275 

District Attorney 

Hale County Courthouse Re: Authority of a county 

Plainview, Texas 79072 auditor to prescribe a computerized accounting system 

for elected county officials 

(RQ-2058) 

Dear Mr; McEachern: 

You ask whether a county auditor is authorized to prescribe a particular computerized accounting system, including hardware and software, for the accounts of all elected 

county officials. You suggest that a county auditor serving 

a county with a population of less than 190,000 may impose 

such a requirement pursuant to section 112.001 of the Local 

Government Code.1 

The facts presented to us by your office and the office 

of the county tax assessor-collector are as follows. The 

county has begun installation of a central computer mainframe to handle all computer operations of the district, 

county and commissioners courts, and the offices of the 

district attorney, county auditor, county clerk, district 

clerk, juvenile probation department, and adult probation 

department. The office of the county tax assessor-collector 

has a separate system. You ask whether a county auditor can 

impose a computer accounting system upon the accounts of 

elected offices of county government, especially with regard 

to a county tax assessor. 

Section 112.001 of the Local Government Code provides 

the following: 

In a county with a population of less than 

190,000, the county auditor may adopt and 

enforce regulations, not inconsistent with 

1. You advise us that Hale County has a population of 

less than 190,000. 

P- 6819 
Honorable Terry D. McEachern - Page 2 (JM-1275) 

law or with a rule adopted [by the Comptroller of Public Accounts] under Section 

112.003, that the auditor considers necessary 

for the speedy and proper collecting, checkiw , and accounting of the revenues and other 

funds and fees that belong to the county. 

You note that this provision allows the implementation of 

the various duties of the county auditor to audit and 

oversee county finances, particularly the duties imposed by, 

sections 112.006, 115.001, and 115.002 of the Local Government Code. 

Section 112.001 must be contrasted, however, with 

section 112.002 of the Local Government Code, which describes the authority of the county auditor in a county with 

a population of 190,000 or more. The latter provision 

expressly authorizes the auditor in the larger counties to 

adopt the system of accounting for the county. Section 

112.001 contains no comparable grant of authority. 

In Attorney General Opinion JM-1099 (1989) we concluded 

that auditors in counties with fewer than 190,000 inhabitants may require county officers to supply basic information that is necessary' to the accomplishment of the 

auditor's statutory duties. Auditors in all counties are 

authorized to prescribe financial procedures and internal 

accounting controls for their counties. s!e Attorney 

General Opinions M-579 (1970); C-276 (1964). These opinions, 

which dealt primarily with procedures concerning the custody 

and control of county funds, demonstrate that the county 

auditor is entitled to ask for necessary information in a 

form that reasonably accommodates the auditor's needs, so 

long as it is not inconsistent with a rule or form adopted 

by the Comptroller of Public Accounts pursuant to section 

112.003. a Attorney General Opinion JM-1099 (1989). 

Furthermore, the rules adopted by the auditor should not 

unreasonably infringe on the duties of other county officers. 

If the auditor has determined that information regarding county finances can best be transmitted and processed 

through the use of particular computer programming, we 

believe other county offices that have compatible computer 

equipment are under a duty to comply with that determination 

by installing compatible programming in their departments. 

Accordingly, we believe a county auditor serving a county 

with a population of less than 190,000 may adopt and enforce 

regulations pursuant to section 112.001 that incidentally 

require the use of specified computer programming, so long 

as such rules are not inconsistent with law or a rule or 

form adopted by the comptroller under section 112.003. 

D. 6820 
Honorable Terry D. McEachern - Page 3 (JM-1275) 

However, the auditor may not, as you contend, dictate 

which equipment county officers shall use. Such a determination is appropriately reserved for the commissioners 

court in the exercise of its discretion in approving budgets 

and making contracts for the purchase of equipment and 

supplies for the county. 

In support of your contention, you cite Commissioners 

Court of Harris County v. Fullerton 596 S.W.28 572 (Tex. 

Civ. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] lQi0, writ ref'd n.r.e.) 

where it was held that the commissioners court was under A 

ministerial duty to supply the county auditor with whatever 

equipment the auditor determined was necessary for the 

proper functioning of his office unless the commissioners 

court found that the auditor had abused his discretion. The 

case concerned the commissioners court's refusal to supply 

the auditor with computer equipment of the auditor's 

specification and various orders of the court requiring, 

among other things, the sale of the auditor's computer 

equipment and the transfer of computer operations of the 

office to a department created by the commissioners court 

and under its control. The court found that the auditor's 

duty to prescribe accounting methods, forms and rules 

regarding county money, in conjunction with the authority 

granted by former V.T.C.S. article 1650 (now section 84.901 

of the Local Government Code), supplied ample authority for 

its conclusion. Article 1650, however, at the time provided 

that the auditor could provide himself with all necessary 

equipment at the county's expense. Thus, we are not 

convinced that the case supports the proposition that the 

auditor may order other county officers to use computer 

equipment of the auditor's specification in the conduct of 

the affairs of their offices. 

Two other issues concerning your request have been 

brought to our attention by a county tax assessor-collector 

and the Secretary of State's office. The first is whether 

the auditor may, through specific programming of the county 

computer system, obtain immediate, unobstructed, and unsupervised access to the records of elected county officers 

that are stored in the computer system. We conclude that 

the auditor may not acquire such access. The second 

concerns the maintenance of voter registration information 

on computer by the. tax assessor-collector in her capacity 

as registrar of voters. 

We are informed that the computer system is supervised 

by the district clerk's office. As you describe it, the 

system'is programmed to allow each office to conduct its 

own business, but it also permits the county auditor .to 

'*collect, check, and account for revenues and other funds 

received by county or district officers." We assume this 

D. 6821 
Honorable Terry D. McEachern - Page 4 (JM-1275) 

means that the computer is programmed to allow the county 

auditor to obtain immediate, unobstructed, and unsupervised 

access to information collected and maintained by other 

offices that is transmitted to the central computer. The 

county tax assessor-collector has expressed misgivings about 

this feature of the computer system. 

Section 112.006 of the Local Government Code provides 

that the auditor has "general oversight" of the books and 

records of a county, district, or state officer authorized 

or required by law to receive money or property belonging to 

the county or intended for its use. Section 115.001(l) 

grants the auditor "continual access" to the "books, 

accounts, reports, vouchers, and other records of any 

officer." The auditor is under the duty to carefully 

examine and investigate the correctness of these records and 

reports. Local Gov't Code 50 115.001; 115.002. 

Sections 112.006 and 115.001 date back to 1905, when 

the substance of these provisions was included in the enactment first creating the office of county auditor. See Acts 

1905, 29th Leg., ch. 161, at 381. Obviously, the legislature could not then have foreseen the development of 

technology that would allow the county auditor to take 

literally the grant of continual access to the records of 

county officers. This office has previously declined to 

pass on the manner in which the auditor exercises his or her 

duties under section 115.001. &&a Attorney General Opinions 

O-6260 (1944); O-2734-A (1940). However, this office has 

previously determined that these provisions do not grant the 

county auditor immediate or unlimited access to the records 

of county officers and do not divest county officers of 

reasonable control over the information maintained in the 

pursuit of their official duties. 

Attorney General Opinion WW-154 (1957) concluded that 

"continual access" means that the auditor may be present in 

office of the county officer whose records are to be examined at all times when that office is in operation. It also 

determined that in the absence of statutory authorization or 

the permission of the county officer, the auditor could not 

remove the records from the office for inspection. The 

county officer could therefore prevent the auditor from 

physically removing the records. 

Similar reasoning should apply here. We have identified no statute that authorizes the county auditor to obtain 

immediate, unlimited access to the computerized records of 

county officers. The Open Records Act and the Local Government Records Act, moreover, specifically charge elected 

county, district, and precinct officers with the control, 

management, and preservation of information created or 

P. 6822 
Honorable Terry D. McEachern - Page 5 (JM-1275) 

received by their offices pursuant to law or in the transaction of public business, including information stored in a 

computer that serves all county offices. Attorney General 

Opinion JM-1224 (1990). &g V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a, 5 5(a): 

Local Gov't Code 5s 203.002, 203.005, 205.002. Neither the 

commissioners court nor an office created by it to manage 

the computer system may deprive elected county officers of 

this statutory authority. 

(1990) .2 

Attorney General Opinion JM-1224 

Accordingly, we do not believe the county auditor may, 

through computer programming or equipment applications, 

obtain unlimited access to the records of elected county, 

district, or precinct officers without the prior authorization of the officers. Because county officers are equally 

bound by sections 112.006 and 115.001, their authorization 

may not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld. 

The final issue raised by this opinion request concerns 

the storage of voter registration information on computer by 

the county tax assessor-collector in her capacity as registrar, of voters. 

We have also learned that the commissioners court 

recently ordered the cancellation of the contract for the 

lease of computer hardware and software used by the county 

tax assessor-collector's office. The cancellation is 

effective at the close of business on December 31, 1990. We 

are advised that the tax~assessor-collector serves as voter 

registrar for the county, and that voter registration 

2. The county tax assessor-collector has expressed 

concern that installation of the computer system as it has 

been described in this opinion will effectively circumvent 

her control over access to the records maintained by her 

office. Attorney General Opinion JM-1224 indicated that 

elected county officers had implied authority to adopt 

reasonable security and control measures for any information 

received by their offices and stored electronically. Thus, 

the county tax assessor-collector in this instance would be 

authorized to adopt controls reasonably designed to ensure 

the security of the records of her office and to prevent 

unauthorized access to such records, provided she has not 

delegated this duty under the Local Government Records Act. 

See Local Gov't Code § 203.005(g). The opinion also 

indicated that the duty of the commissioners court in these 

circumstances is to facilitate the implementation of 

reasonable security measures by the elected county officer. 

&g Local Gov't Code 5 203.003. 

P. 6823 
Honorable Terry D. McEachern - Page 6 (JR-1275) 

information is maintained with the assistance of the 

computer hardware and software supplied by a private 

company. m Elec. Code J 12.001. 

Section 18.012 of the Election Code prohibits a county 

from entering into a contract with a computer services 

company or other private business for services related to 

original, supplemental, or corrected lists of registered 

voters without the Secretary of State's prior approval of 

the programs, equipment, or other materials covered by the 

contract. The Secretary of State's office informs us that 

the contract with the private business entity regarding the 

computer equipment currently used by the county tax 

assessor-collector in her capacity as registrar of voters 

was subject to this provision. 

If it appears that the commissioners court will require 

the tax assessor-collector to maintain voter registration 

information in the county computer system, this action 

ordinarily would not be subject to section 18.012. However, 

if the county intends to contract with a private business 

entity for any service relating to computerized lists of 

registered voters, including programming of the county 

computer to accommodate such information, the contract is 

subject to section 18.012 and cannot be entered into without 

the prior approval of the secretary of state.3 

SUMMARY 

A county auditor in a county with a 

population of less than 190,000 may adopt and 

enforce regulations pursuant to section 

112.001 of the Local Government Code that 

incidentally require the use of specific 

3. The registrar of voters may also have a separate 

legal duty to secure other voter registration information 

stored electronically. See Elec. Code 90 13.103 (voter 

registration application files may be stored electronically, 

but their physical security must be maintained): 15.053 

(files of duplicate initial voter registration certificates 

may be maintained as electronic data processing 

information); 15.054 (files must be kept at all times by 

registrar in a place and manner that ensures their 

security). These provisions may implicitly authorize the 

registrar to adopt computer security measures for such 

information, but it is unnecessary to decide this issue, 

since we have already determined that the Local Government 

Records Act grants comparable authority. 
Honorable Terry D. McEachern - Page 7 (JM-1275) 

computer programming by county officers, 

provided such rules are not inconsistent with 

law or a regulation adopted by the Comptroller of Public Accounts pursuant to 

section 112.003 of the Local Government Code 

and do not unreasonably infringe upon the 

duties of county officers. The county 

auditor may not dictate what equipment county 

officers shall use in the conduct of the 

affairs of their offices. 

If voter registration information is maintained on a computer system that serves all 

county offices, and if the commissioners 

court intends to contract with a private 

business entity for any service relating to 

such computerized information, the contract 

may not be executed without the prior 

approval of the Secretary of State pursuant 

to section 18.0.12 of the Election Code. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

LOU MCCREARY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLXY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Steve Aragon 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 6825