JIM MATTOX Attorney General

Supreme Court Building P.0. Box12546 Austin, TX. 76711.2546 5121475-2501 Telex 9101674-1367 Telecopier 5121475.0266

714Jackson, Suite700 Dallas. TX.75202.4506 214,742.6944

4624Alberta Ave.,Suite 160 ElPaso,TX. 79905.2793 9151533-3464

“‘I1 Texas, Suite700 .auston.TX. 77002.3111 7131223.5666

606Broadway. Suite312 Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 6061747.5236

4309 N.Tenth, Suite B McAllen, TX. 76501.1665 5121662.4547

200Main Plaza. Suite400 SanAntonio. TX. 76205.2797 5121225-4191

AnEqualOpportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer 

# TheAttorney General ofTexas

October 13, 1983

Honorable MikeDriscoll 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 ongrounds that it funds pregnancy termination ClilIiC DearMr. 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. Theoperation of the Harris County Hospital District is governed byarticle 4494n, V.T.C.S., which provides in section 8the following:

Sec. 8. Onceeach year, assmn aspracticable after the close of the fiscal yea=, the Administrator of the Hospital District shall report to the Board ofManagers, 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. Suchreport shall showin 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 ajuvenile 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. 334I
Honorable MikeDriscoll - Page 2 (JM-79)

subject to the approval of the County Commissioners Court

. . . . The opinion concluded that section 5of article 5142b authorized the El Paso County Connnissioners Court to decline to approve abudget 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 inAttorney General Opinion MW-15. Theopinion noted:

Therelevant language of article 332a, section 5, is unambiguous andcanberead inharmonywith 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 makesthe commissioners court responsible for financial matters -- approving the prosecutors’ salary and travel expense proposals, andproviding for office expenses . . . . In our CJpidJn, article 4494n is similar to the statutes construed inAttorney General Opinions MW-15andH-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.), wasdiscussed inAttorney General Opinion MW-15. That case, involving appointment of adult probation officers under section 10of article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concluded that a commissioners court wasnot authorized to reject abudget submitted by adistrict judge unless the budget was so unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious as to amount to anabuse of discretion. Attorney General Opinion MW-15declared:

Thelanguage 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. 335Honorable MikeDriscoll - Page 3 (JM-79)

similar ambiguity in article 5142b nor similar language which would broaden the responsibility of thejuvenile 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 acounty auditor "to provide himself with all necessary ledgers, books, records, blanks, stationary, equipment, telephones and postage at the county's expense." Underthe 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 someother statute, specifically authorized. Since no statute specifically authorizes a hospital district tomakethe expenditures about which you inquire, we mustconclude, onthe authority of Attorney General Opinions MU-15and 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. Nordowebelieve that anystatute requires the commissioners court to specify the reason for 1;s disapprovai. We course, regarding what is advisable in administrative practice. makenodetermination, 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 

# Jh

iA JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas

p. 336Honorable MikeDriscoll - Page 4 (JM-79)

TOMGREEN First Assistant Attorney General DAVIDR. RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byRick Gilpin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Chairman JonBible Susan Garrison JimMoellinger Bruce Youngblood

p. 337