### PRICE

DANIEL *I*ORNeY GENERAL AcwrIN 11.-l-n February 14, 1951

Hon. TomReavlelv 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 related matter. Dear Sir: Werefer 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 CoPrmlssion4erecoxxt, 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 a

n 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? MuBtthe reasons for removal be stated to the County Road hgineer prior to

### Ron.TamReavley, 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 ownvltn4sres and evlaence and to be represented by 

### cop~~sel?~" In Att’y @en. Op. 

### V-537 (1948), it 

### isatatear

“Genera-

.‘y speaking, weme of 

### the,opin35 Ion that 

### the'Xk8nnnlss1on4~! Court@ti

Bramrla couxity;‘afte% ado

E 

### tlon ty Road **Law** 

### of 

### 61 thsCptidaalCOWI19 7, has authority to 

### decide 8na outline the general 

### prlnolples and the general over-all syst#n govemlag the o nstructlon andmaintenance of 

### countyma 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 CountyRoadRng+er la the Optional Coun- ,:y Road Lfiv6f 1947. thorlty on the CountyRoad

### Ragiwerto set the salaries of county road 

### employees, en&.ln 014~ of the foregoing, 

### we 

### agreewith you that the cdlihPiss1oners 

### 8court, may-raise the salaries OPvages *f the road depa+Ient employees.wlthout the recommendation 

### and over 

### t&eprote~st oS theCountyRoea , 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 OSthe Constitution of Texas and therefore was missioners’ court under sub eat to be removed by the corn-, 

### Seaiion 7,ot Article 6716-l. 

### Ssctlon'JJ

OSArticle6716-1,

Y.C.S.,provides:

.‘I +,:.

“The Co&y Road9 

### la4eri&allholdhis positian qor..a;li iaaefini 4 term tinamay 

### be removed bs/a'majorlty vote 

### ot the Conmission- .ero 

### CourtD 

### RemovalshallnotbecomeefPectlveuntil thirty 

### (30)days after he Oh411 have been notitled la vrltlng of the lntentlon OSthe 

### Comdsa1on4rsCourt 

### torbmove him, and until after a 

### publie hearing on the question of his remover shell have been held, ii euch hearing 1s requested OSthe Comlssloners Court in wrltlag by the County Roaa / i Engineer’

.*Hon. TomReavley, 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 ,:Lieengineer 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 hearfng
. 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.) mayraise 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 

### OfArticle 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. TomReavley, 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, PRICEIIANIEL Attorney General

Assistant