ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

GREG ABBOTT 

Dr. Carl A. Montoya 

Chair, Texas School Safety Center Board 

Brownsville Independent School District 

1900 Price Road 

Brownsville, Texas 78S21-2417 

Dear Dr. Montoya: 

April S, 2010 

Opinion No. GA-0767 

Re: Authority of the Board of Directors of the 

Texas School Safety Center under various 

provisions of subchapter G, chapter 37, Texas 

Education Code (RQ-083S-GA) 

The Legislature established the Texas School Safety Center (the "Center") as a permanent 

entity in 2001 to serve as "a central location for school safety information ... and a resource for 

the prevention of youth violence and the promotion of safety in the state." 1 TEx. EDUC. CODE .ANN. 

§ 37.202 (Vernon Supp. 2009). The Center is advised by the Board of Directors (the "Board"), 

which is comprised of a number of State officials, or their designees, and gubernatorial appointees. 

Id. § 37.203(a). You ask several questions related to the authority of the Center's Board? 

You first ask whether the Board has ''jurisdiction under the Education Code to approve or 

disapprove" the Center's budget. Request Letter at 2. Subsection 37.21S(a) of the Education Code 

expressly states, "[t]he board shall annually approve a budget for the center." TEx. EDUC. CODE 

.ANN. § 37.21S(a) (Vernon 2006). Use of the word "shall" imposes a duty on the Board and is 

generally construed as mandatory, "unless legislative intent suggests otherwise." City of Austin v. 

Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 92 S.W.3d 434,442 (Tex. 2002); see also TEx. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.016(2) 

(Vernon 200S) (explaining that "'[s]hall' imposes a duty"). We find no contrary legislative intent 

and thus conclude that under the plain language of the statute the Board must approve a budget each 

year for the Center. 

However, while section 37.21S(a) does not expressly state that the Board also has the 

authority to disapprove a particular budget, neither does the section suggest that the Board must 

approve any specific budget submitted to it. If the Board were required to approve any proposed 

budget, the approval requirement would be meaningless, and we assume the Legislature did not enact 

IPrior to 2001, the Center existed "as a grant-funded organization within the Criminal Justice Division of the 

Office of the Governor." SENATE COMM. ON PUBLIC EDUC., BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. S.B. 430, 77th Leg., R.S. (2001). 

2Request Letter at 2 (available at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov). 
Dr. Carl A. Montoya· - Page 2 (GA-0767) 

a meaningless statute. Webb County Appraisal Dist. v. New Laredo Hotel, Inc., 792 S.W.2d 952, 

954 (Tex. 1990). In addition, Texas attorneys general have addressed budget approval statutes 

governing other entities and have found implicit authority for those entities to disapprove budgets 

subject to their approval. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-79 (1983) at 3, MW -15 (1979) at 

2, H -908 (1976) at 3. For example, in Attorney General Opinion JM -79, the statute at issue required 

an administrator of a hospital district to "prepare an annual budget which shall be ... presented to 

the Commissioners Court for fmal approval." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-79 (1983) at 1, 3. That 

opinion concluded that based on the language in the statute the commissioners court was 

"empowered to r~ject any budget submitted." Id. at 3; cf Comm'rs Court o/Hays County v. Dist. 

Judge, 506 S.W.2d 630, 635 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1974, writ refd n.r.e.) (concluding that, 

because a separate statute required a s,pecific budget allocation, a commissioners court could reject 

a submitted budget only if it was so unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious to amount to an abuse of 

discretion). Similarly, in Attorney General Opinion H-908, where a statute required that salaries of 

assistant prosecuting attorneys be "fixed by the prosecuting attorney, subject to the approval of the 

commissioners court," the opinion concluded that "[ t ]he commissioners may disapprove the salaries, 

and therefore can be said to have veto power over that part of the district attorney's budget." Tex. 

Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-908 (1976) at 3; see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-132 (1992) at 4, 6 

(explaining that a principal's statutory authority to "approve all teacher and staff appointments" was 

"more like a veto power"). We believe the Board similarly has veto power over the Center's budget. 

Thus, we conclude that the Board is authorized either to approve or disapprove a particular budget 

submitted to it, as long as it ultimately approves a budget each year. 

Your second and third questions ask whether the Board has jurisdiction to "advise the Texas 

School Safety Center," specifically with regard to the budget and the organization and design of the 

Center, and to "approve budgets for programs not required under the Education Code." Request 

Letter at 2. 

Under the plain language of the statute, the Legislature has given the Board general authority 

to advise the Center. TEx. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 37.203(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009) ("The center is 

advised by a board of directors .... "). The Legislature has not otherwise limited the subject matter 

of the advice that the Board may offer. We therefore conclude that the Board may offer advice to 

the Center, including advice concerning the budget and the organization and design of the Center. 

Whether the Board may approve budgets for programs not required under the Education 

Code, however, is a separate question that requires further analysis of the Center's authority under 

the statute. The Center is a creation of the Legislature, and as such it has only the powers conferred 

on it, expressly or impliedly, by the Legislature. State v. Jackson, 376 S. W.2d 341, 344 (Tex. 1964); 

see also Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 253 S.W.3d 184, 192-93 (Tex. 2007) 

(explaining that a state agency's powers are limited to those expressly conferred or implied and 

reasonably necessary to carry out the express responsibilities given to it by the Legislature). The 

Legislature's purpose for the Center is ''to serve as: (1) a central location for school safety and 

security information ~ .. ; (2) a central registry of persons providing school safety and security 

consulting services in the state; and (3) a resource for the prevention of youth violence and the 

promotion of safety in the state." TEx. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 37.202 (Vernon Supp. 2009). To those 
Dr. Carl A. Montoya - Page 3 (GA-0767) 

ends, the Legislature has dictated specific responsibilities that the Center shall perform, including 

conducting a safety training program for school districts, developing "security criteria that school 

districts may consider in the design of instructional facilities," and developing a "model safety and 

security audit procedure for use by school districts and public junior college districts." ld. § § 37.205, 

.2051 (Vernon 2006),37.207 (Vernon Supp. 2009); see also id. §§ 37.209-.213 (Vernon SUpp. 

2009) (outlining additional responsibilities of the Center). Thus, the Center is limited to furthering 

these statutorily prescribed purposes and responsibilities. By implication, the Board is likewise 

limited to approving budgets for only those programs that are in furtherance of the Center's 

legislatively prescribed purposes and responsibilities and that fall within the Center's express or 

necessarily implied powers. 

In your final question, you ask whether "the Board [has] liability for the funds approved for 

the operation of the Texas School Safety Center." Request Letter at 2. You do not specify whether 

you are concerned with the liability of individual Board members or the Board's liability as a 

governmental entity, nor do you explain the specific basis of liability that concerns you. Without 

additional information, we cannot provide an answer to this question. We also note that whether 

individual members of the Board could be held liable in a particular instance, and whether the Board 

itself could be held liable, would depend on factual determinations that generally cannot be resolved 

in the opinion process. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0115 (2003) at 2 (explaining that "we 

cannot determine in any particular instance whether the elements of a defense of official immunity 

have been met"). 
Dr. Carl A. Montoya - Page 4 (GA-0767) 

SUMMARY 

The Board of the Texas School Safety Center is authorized to 

either approve or disapprove a particular budget submitted to it by the 

Center, as long as it ultimately approves a budget annually as required 

by the Legislature. 

The Board may offer advice to the Center, including advice 

concerning the organization and design of the Center. 

The Board is limited to approving budgets for only those 

programs that are in furtherance of the Center's legislatively 

prescribed purposes and responsibilities and that fall within the 

Center's express or necessarily implied powers. 

Whether individual members of the Board could be held liable 

for funds approved for the operation of the Center, and whether the 

Board itself could be held liable, would depend on factual 

determinations that cannot be resolved in the opinion process. 

ANDREW WEBER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

JONATHAN K. FRELS 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel 

NANCY S. FULLER 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Virginia K. Hoelscher 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee