PRICE DANIEL *I*ORNeY GENERAL 

AcwrIN 11. -l-n 

February 14, 1951 

Hon. Tom Reavlelv 

County AttorneyNacogdoches County 

Macogdoches, Texas 

ODInion .~ MO. V-1151 

Re: Authority of the commissioners' court to 

increase the compensation of road department em?lo:<eez without 

ap?roval by the County 

Road Engineer under the 

Optional County Road 

Law of 1947 and a reDear Sir: lated matter. 

We refer to your recent 

part as follows: 

request which reads in 

"The opinion of yo,ur Department is respectfully requested on the two quqstions 

.stated below concerning the power of the 

Commissione,ns Court to set wag& for the 

road employees against or without reeommendation of the County Road Engineer and 

concerning the nature of public hearing 

required by Section 7, Article 6716-1, 

V.C.S. 

"Nacoguoches County has duly adopted the 

provisions of the Optional County Road Law of 

1947, Art. 6716-1, V.C.S. 

“My opinion has been requested on the 

following two questions: ; 

“(1) ‘Can the CoPrmlssion4ere coxxt, wlthout the rec.ommendatlon and over the protest of 

the County Road Engineer, raise the salaries 

or wages of road department employees?' 

v c p) 'iJ n a er Section 7, Article 6716-1, 

pertaining to. the removal of the 

C&&~‘Road Engineer by the Commissioners 

Court, what nature of public hearing must 

be held? MuBt the reasons for removal be 

stated to the County Road hgineer prior to 
Ron. Tam Reavley, page 2 (V-1151) 

the hearing? Must probative evidence be 

presented upon the headng to support those 

reasons? 14 the Road kgla44P rntitiea to 

present Ns own vltn4sres and evlaence and 

to be represented by cop~~sel?~" 

In Att’y @en. Op. V-537 (1948), it is atatear 

“Genera- 35 .‘y speaking, we me of the, opinIon that the'Xk8nnnlss1on4~! Court@ti Bramrla 

couxity;‘afte% ado 

E 

tlon 

ty Road Law of 

61 ths Cptidaal COWI19 7, has authority to decide 

8na outline the general prlnolples and the 

general over-all syst#n govemlag the o nstructlon and maintenance of county ma %- 8 in 

hat county. Th Coziml 1 I c 

all of the power: ‘and &l?~ven~ 

cl4 2351, V&S., which are not delegated to 

the County Road Rng+er la the Optional Coun- 

,:y Road Lfiv 6f 1947. 

thorlty on the County Road Ragiwer to set the salaries of 

county road employees, en&.ln 014~ of the foregoing, we 

agree with you that the cdlihPiss1oners 8 court, may-raise the 

salaries OP vages *f the road depa+Ient employees .wlthout 

the recommendation and over t&e prote~st oS the County Roea , 

Engineer. 

It vas held in 

s.wd?a 738 (T~x.oIV.A~~. 

tg Road Engineer was not 

lng of Section 24 or Artlole Y OS the Constitution of 

Texas and therefore was 

missioners’ court under 

sub eat to be removed by the corn-, 

Sea i ion 7, ot Article 6716-l. 

Ssctlon'JJ OS Article 6716-1, Y.C.S., provides: 

.‘I +,:. 

“The Co&y Road 

9 

la4eri&all hold his 

positian qor..a;li iaaefini 4 term tina may be 

removed bs/a'majorlty vote ot the Conmission- 

.ero Court D Removal shall not become efPectlve until thirty (30) days after he Oh411 

have been notitled la vrltlng of the lntentlon OS the Comdsa1on4rs Court to rbmove 

him, and until after a publie hearing on the 

question of his remover shell have been held, 

ii euch hearing 1s requested OS the Comlssloners Court in wrltlag by the County Roaa / i 

Engineer’. * 
Hon. Tom Reavley, page 3 (V-1151) 

The removal of the County Road Rr@neer by the 

commLssloners ’ court under the above statute fs essentially administrative or executive in nature. Under its 

provisions a public hearing on the question of Ms removal must be held if requested by Nm in writing(, but 

this does not change the nature of the proceeding. 

The statute requires that notice be given to 

,:Lie engineer by the comkissioners’ court of its intention to remove him, but it does not require that the reasons for such removal be stated In the notice or prior to 

the hearf ng . In fact, the record in the Dunbar case reflects that the engineer was not given the reasons for 

the removal until the day of the hearing, and this fact 

was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in the 

application for writ of error in that case. It is believed, however, that fair play would dictate that the 

reasons be given in advance of the hearing in order that 

he might have a reasonable time in which to secure witnesses in his behalf. A.public heari% would necessarily imply that evidence should be presented in support of 

the reasons assigned for removing the.engineer from office and that the engineer be given the opportunity, 

either in person or through counsel, to present witnesses In his behalf. 

The commissioners1 court in a county 

operating under the provisLons. of the Optional County Road Law.3 of 1947 (Art. 6716-1, 

V.C.S.) may raise the salaries or wages of 

road department employees without the recommendation and over the protest of the 

County Road Engineer. 

The removal of a County Road Engineer 

by the commissioners’ court under Section 7 

Of Article 6716-1, V.C.S., is administrative 

or executive in nature. Motfce must be given 

to the en@neer by the commissioners’ court 

of its intention to remove him, but the reasons assigned for such removal are not required to be stated in the notice or prior 

to the public hearing. A public hearing 

Implies that evidence should be presented 

in support of the reasons assigned for removing the engineer from office and that the 
_, - 

K.?n. Tom Reavley, page 4 (v-1151) 

r 

engineer be ~glven the opportunity, either 

In person 0~~+2mmgh counsel, to present 

witnesses in+ls behalf. 

APPROVED: 

S. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

Jesse P. Lutbn, Jr. 

ReviewingAssIstant 

C&mles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE IIANIEL 

Attorney General 

Assistant