JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. Box 12546 

Austin, TX. 76711. 2546 

5121475-2501 

Telex 9101674-1367 

Telecopier 5121475.0266 

714 Jackson, Suite 700 

Dallas. TX. 75202.4506 

214,742.6944 

4624 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 

9151533-3464 

“‘I1 Texas, Suite 700 

.auston. TX. 77002.3111 

7131223.5666 

606 Broadway. Suite 312 

Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 

6061747.5236 

4309 N. Tenth, Suite B 

McAllen, TX. 76501.1665 

5121662.4547 

200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 

San Antonio. TX. 76205.2797 

5121225-4191 

An Equal Opportunity/ 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

October 13, 1983 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

Harris County Attorney 

1001 Preston, Suite 634 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Opinion No.JM-79 

Re: Authority of cormnissioners 

court to refuse to approve 

hospital budget on grounds that 

it funds pregnancy termination 

ClilIiC 

Dear Mr. Driscoll: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of the 

Harris County Commissioners Court to refuse to approve the budget of 

the Harris County Hospital District. 

The operation of the Harris County Hospital District is governed 

by article 4494n, V.T.C.S., which provides in section 8 the following: 

Sec. 8. Once each year, as smn as practicable 

after the close of the fiscal yea=, the 

Administrator of the Hospital District shall 

report to the Board of Managers, the Commissioners 

court, the State Board of Health and the State 

Comptroller a full sworn statement of all moneys 

and chases in action received by such 

Administrator and how disbursed or otherwise 

disposed of. Such report shall show in detail the 

operations of the District for the term. Under 

the direction of the Board of Managers, he shall 

prepare an annual budget which shall be approved 

by the Board of Managers and shall then be 

presented to the Commissioners Court for final 

approval. In like manner all budget revisions 

shall be subject to approval by the Commissioners 

court. (Emphasis added). 

In Attorney General Opinion MW-15 (1979), this office construed 

article 5142b, V.T.C.S., regarding the budget submitted by a juvenile 

board. That statute provided the following in pertinent part: 

Section 5. The compensation of all probation 

officers shall be fixed by the Juvenile Board 

p. 334 
I 

Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (JM-79) 

subject to the approval of the County Commissioners Court . . . . 

The opinion concluded that section 5 of article 5142b authorized the 

El Paso County Connnissioners Court to decline to approve a budget for 

compensation of juvenile probation officers submitted by the county 

juvenile board. 

In Attorney General Opinion H-908 (1976). this office held that 

salaries for assistants and investigators fixed by a prosecuting 

attorney must be approved by the commissioners court in order to 

become effective. The language of the statute was identical to that 

considered in Attorney General Opinion MW-15. The opinion noted: 

The relevant language of article 332a, section 5, 

is unambiguous and can be read in harmony with the 

entire statute without departing from its plain 

meaning. The statute makes prosecuting attorneys 

responsible for personnel matters -- hiring, 

removal and setting salaries and travel 

expenses . . . . It makes the commissioners court 

responsible for financial matters -- approving the 

prosecutors’ salary and travel expense proposals, 

and providing for office expenses . . . . 

In our CJpidJn, article 4494n is similar to the statutes 

construed in Attorney General Opinions MW-15 and H-908. It authorizes 

the administrator and board of managers of a hospital district to 

propose and submit a suggested budget. But it accords to the 

conrmissioners court the right of “final approval.” 

It has been suggested that two judicial decisions require a 

different result. Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 

471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1971. writ ref’d n.r.e.), 

was discussed in Attorney General Opinion MW-15. That case, involving 

appointment of adult probation officers under section 10 of article 

42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concluded that a 

commissioners court was not authorized to reject a budget submitted by 

a district judge unless the budget was so unreasonable, arbitrary or 

capricious as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Attorney General 

Opinion MW-15 declared: 

The language relating to the commissioners court’s 

duty in [Martin] was ambiguous, and... the courts 

relied on the rest of the act to ascertain the 

legislative intent. The statute specifically 

indicated that this purpose was to plSCe 

responsibility for probation supervision wholly 

within the state courts. There is neither a 

p. 335 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 3 (JM-79) 

similar ambiguity in article 5142b nor similar 

language which would broaden the responsibility of 

the juvenile board. 

In Commissioners Court of Harris County v. Fullerton, 596 S.W.2d 

572 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), 

the Harris County- auditor had submitted an equipment budget to the 

commissioners court. The commissioners rejected specific items of 

equipment and reduced the budget by $380,000. The court held that, 

once the auditor makes a determination that a particular item of 

equipment is necessary for the proper functioning of his office, the 

commissioners must ministerially take the proper legal steps to 

provide that equipment "unless it finds that the county auditor abused 

his discretion." Id. at 576. The decision was based, however, on 

article 1650, V.T.C.S., which authorizes a county auditor "to provide 

himself with all necessary ledgers, books, records, blanks, 

stationary, equipment, telephones and postage at the county's 

expense." 

Under the court's reasoning in Fullerton, the commissioners court 

would be obliged to ministerially approve only those items in the 

hospital district's budget which article 4494n, or some other statute, 

specifically authorized. Since no statute specifically authorizes a 

hospital district to make the expenditures about which you inquire, we 

must conclude, on the authority of Attorney General Opinions MU-15 and 

H-908, that the commissioners court is the body ultimately responsible 

for the financial affairs of the county, and that, as such, it is 

empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district. 

Nor do we believe that any statute requires the commissioners court to 

specify the reason for 1;s disapprovai. We 

course, regarding what is advisable in 

administrative practice. 

make no determination, of 

the interests of sound 

SUMMARY 

The commissioners court of Harris County, 

pursuant to its right of "final approval" of the 

budget of the Harris County Hospital District, is 

empowered to reject any budget submitted by the 

hospital district. 

Very truly yours J 

JIM 

iA 

MATTOX 

h 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 336 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 4 (JM-79) 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID R. RICHARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Susan Garrison 

Jim Moellinger 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 337