The Attorney General of Texas 

July 20, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable William R. Pemberton 

County Attorney, Bee County 

Beeville, Texas 

Opinion No. H- 1212 

Re: County auditor’s responsibility for auditing CETA funds. 

Dear Mr. Pemberton: 

You inform us that Bee County participates in certain programs 

established and funded under the Comprehensive Employment and Training 

Act (CETA), 29 U.S.C. SS 801 - 992. You ask whether the commissioners 

court may delegate its CETA programs and funds to the Bee Community 

Action Agency, permitting payroll disbursements to be made by that Agency. 

You also inquire about the responsibilities of the County Auditor with respect 

to CETA programs and funds delegated or subcontracted to the Bee 

Community Action Agency. 

The Bee Community Action Agency was organized by the commissioners 

court as the community action agency for the county pursuant to the 

Economic Opportunity Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. SS 2701 - 29963 see 42 U.S.C. S 

2790(a). It is a nonprofit agency which receives funds chrectly from the 

Community Services Administration to finance certain poverty programs. 42 

U.S.C. SS 2790, 2795. See Attorney General Opinions M-714, M-605 (1970). 

- 

The county is a member of the Coastal Bend Consortium, which acts as 

a CETA prime sponsor. See Attorney General Opinion H-891 (1976). The 

agreement establishing th=onsortium provides that the city of Corpus 

Christi will administer the programs and funds, but that ‘nothing herein shall 

relieve the metibers of the Consortium of their ultimate responsibility for 

the use of funds.” The agreement also provides that 

each party/member of this Consortium who contracts with the Consortium will be primarily 

responsible to the Consortium for any monies it 

receives by virtue of any contract entered into by 

said party/member. . . . 

P. 4858 
. . . . . . 

Honorable William R. Pemberton - Page 2 (H-1212) 

Bee County has in fact entered into a contract with the Consortium to receive 

CETA funds and the funds received thereunder are paid into the county treasury 

and disbursed by the county. The contract transferring CETA funds from the 

Coastal Bend Consortium to Bee County expressly states that the accounting 

system for the funds will be maintained by the county auditor. 

The CETA funds which Bee County receives must be used for purposes 

authorized by federal law and set out in the Comprehensive Manpower Plan 

developed by the prime sponsor. 29 U.S.C. SS 815, 984(e); 29 C.P.R. S 95.31(1976). 

Texas law further limits Bee County to participation in those CETA programs 

directed at assisting indigent persons. V.T.C.S. art. 2351, S lit see Attorney General 

Opinion H-891 (1978). The commissioners court may contrac-with other persons 

and entities to perform services that the county is authorized to perform. 

Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna, 350 S.W.2d 333 (Tex. 1961); Attorney General 

Opinions H-912, H-901, H-892 (1976); H-680 (1975); H-127, H-80 (1973); M-843 (1971). 

Federal law expressly indicates that the services and facilities of community action 

agencies may be used to carry out the purposes of CETA. 29 U.S.C. SS 815(aM3XB), 

984(e). We believe the commissioners court may contract with the Bee County 

Community Action Agency to provide services that will carry out the purposes of 

the CETA grant. 

However, the contracts with the prime sponsor do not permit the commissioners court to relinquish its responsibility to use CETA funds for authorized 

purposes only. Nor does Texas law permit the court to delegate its responsibility 

for county functions when it enlists the services of others in performing them. See 

Whelan v. State, 282 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. 1955); Attorney General Opinion H-80 (197x 

Thus, any agreement by which the commissioners court enlists the services and 

facilities of the Community Action Agency should provide sufficient safeguards to 

ensure that the CETA funds will be spent for authorized purposes only. If 

sufficient safeguards are provided, we believe the court may pay the Agency in a 

lump sum for its services and allow the Agency to make payroll disbursements to 

individuals. We cannot comment on the adequacy of any particular agreement, 

since none has been presented us. 

The contract itself makes the county auditor responsible for accounting for 

CETA funds. It requires the county to comply with federal circulars relating to the 

maintenance of records, books, and accounts. The county auditor should follow the 

federal requirements in the event they differ from usual county procedures. See 

Attorney General Opinion M-887 (1971); compare Attorney General Opinion H-;fi? 

(1976). The contract also provides that CETA funds be deposited in a special bank 

account and designates the county auditor as the person authorized to withdraw 

funds from it. Thus, while the CETA contract specifies certain accounting 

procedures for the funds, it does not relieve the county auditor of responsibility for 

them. On the contrary, it expressly identifies him as the person who will maintain 

P. 4859 
,-’ 

Honorable William R. Pemberton - Page 3 (R-1212) 

the accounting system and see that federal reporting and record keeping standards 

are met. 

SUMMARY 

Bee County may spend CETA funds to contract with the Bee 

County Community Action Agency for services that will 

carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive Employment 

Training Act and the local Comprehensive Manpower Plan. 

The county is responsible for using the funds for authorized 

purposes only. The county auditor is responsible for 

accounting for CETA funds and should follow the procedures 

specified in the contract. 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

NDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 4860