. . 

The Attorney General of Texas 

June 6, 1980 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable Bob Bullock 

Comptroller of P&lie Accounts 

LBJ State Office Build@ 

Austin, Texas 787’74 

Dear Mr. Bullock: 

Opinion No. NN-192 

Re: Investigative authority of the 

Comptroller of Public Accounts. 

You l-c?ve asked a number of questions about the investigative 

authority of your office. Attorney General Opinion H-1063 (1977) concluded 

generally that the comptroller may not independently initiate investigations 

and examinations of the books and records of other state agencies when such 

audits would ‘parallel or duplicate the duties of the State Auditor,” but the 

opinion did not specify areas of activity that would be parallel or duplicate. 

Your specific questions must be considered in the historical context of the 

two offices. 

The position of state auditor was created in 1943 to replace an 

executive officer, the “State Auditor and Efficiency Expert,” appointed by 

the governor. The auditor is appointed by the Legislative Audit Committee, 

an arm of the legislature, Acts 1943, 48th Legislature, chapter 293, at 429, 

end MIS authority to perform audits “of all accounts, books and other 

financial records of the State Government of any officer of the state, 

department, board, bureau, institution, commission or agency thereof,” and 

to examine and audit “all fiscal books, records and accounts of all custodians 

of public funds, and of all disbursing officers of this state, makiw 

independent verifications of all assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures 

of the state, its departments, boards, bureaus, institutions, commmsions or 

agencies. . . .‘I V.T.C.S. art. 4413a-13. 

The comptroller is an elected constitutional officer in the executive 

branch of government. The constitution requires him to “perform such 

duties as are or may be required by law.” Tex. Const. art. IV, S 23. The 

comptroller has the &ty to require that accounts presented to him for 

settlement be verified by affidavit; to require persons receiving money or 

property of which he keeps an account to render statements to him and 

settle their accounts after examination; to superintend the collection of all 

p. 613 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Two (Ml+‘-1921 

moneys due the state; to audit the claims of all persons against the state ‘Qmless the 

audit. . . is otherwise specially provided for”; and to “[sluperintend the fiscal concerns of 

the [sltate, as the sole accounting officer thereof, end manage the Same in the manner 

required by law.” V.T.C.S. art. 4344. This statutory list of the comptroller’s duties has 

remained largely unchanged since the early part of this century. In 1918, however, the 

comptroller was “authorized and empowered to perform the duties and functions of [the] 

office heretofore performed by the State Revenue Agent.” Acts 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S., 

ch. 94, at 19’7. The executive office of state revenue agent, first created in 1891, was 

simultaneously abolished. 

The duties and functions now assigned the comptroller by article L03, TaxationGeneral, V.T.C.S., are those previously performed by the state revenue agent. See Acts 

1959, 56th Leg., 3rd C.S., ch. 1, at 187, former article 7057, V.T.C.S. Part of thorduties 

had been assigned the state revenue agent in 1891 when the office was created. See Acts 

1891, 22nd Leg., ch. 69, at 89. The remainder were added in 1899. See Acts 18% 26th 

Leg., ch. 23, at 26. The original part of the statute that is now embm in article 1.03, 

Taxation-General, V.T.C.S., reads: 

The Governor x, whenever in his judgment the public service 

demands it, direct the Comptroller to investigate books and 

accounts of the assessing and collecting officers of this State, and 

all officers and persons disbursing, receiving or having in their 

possession public funds, and to make such other investigations and 

perform such other duties in the interest of the public revenues as 

the Governor may direct. Whenever any such investigation is 

ordered by the Governor, the Comptroller shall report to him in 

writing the results thereof, and point out the particulars, if any, 

wherein the revenue laws have been violated or their enforcement 

neglected, together with the names of those delinquent therein. 

Whereupon the Governor shall institute civil and criminal proceedhgs through the Attorney General in the name of the State 

against such delinquent parties who are reported @ the 

Comptroller to be delinquent. The Comptroller shall have power at 

any time to examine and check up all and any expenditures of 

money appropriated for any of the state institutions or for any 

other purpose or for improvements made by the State on State 

orooertv or monev received and disbursed bv anv board authorized 

by iaw “to receive and disburse any State mon:y. . . . When the 

[Comptroller], acting under the direction of the Governor, calls on 

any person connected with the public service to inspect his 

accounts, records or books, said person so called upon shall submit 

to said ent all books, records and accounts so called for without 

delay. F Emphasis added). 

P. 614 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Three (MW-192) 

The part enacted in 1899 reads, as embodied in article 1.03, Taxation-General, V.T.C.S. 

The Comptroller shall also heve power and authority end it is 

hereby made his duty, to fully investigate any State institution 

when so directed by the Governor or required by information 

coming to his own knowledge. He shall investigate the manner of 

conducting the same and the policy pursued by those in charge 

thereof, and the conduct or efficiency of any person employed 

therein by the State. He shall examine into and report upon the 

character and manner as well as the amount of expenditures 

thereof, and investigate and ascertain all sums of money due the 

State from any source whatever, the ascertainment and collection 

of which does not devolve upon other officers of this State under 

existing law; and he shall report all such facts to the Governor. 

(Emphasis added). 

The original provision was designed to complement the power given the governor by 

the 1876 constitution to demand accountings of executive officers and managers of state 

institutions, and to inspect their books and accounts. Tex. Const. art. IV, S 24. The state 

revenue egent was empowered to act only under the direction of the governor, and it was 

only when he was so acting that persons connected with the public service were required 

to “sbmit to said agent all books, records and accounts . . . without delay.” That 

language is still found in article 1.03, Taxation-General, V.T.C.S., and we think the 

meaning remains the same. 

The language added in 1899 expanded the revenue agent’s possible scope of inquiry 

beyond fiscal matters. For the first time the statute expressly allowed him to investigate 

“the policy pursued by those in charge [of state institutions], and the conduct or efficiency 

of any person employed therein. . . .‘I He was to do so when “directed” by the governor or 

“required” by information coming to his own knowledge. So far as we can determine, the 

state revenue agent continued to be the agent of the governor, and his initial authority to 

launch an investigation under the statute depended upon gubernatorial direction, but once 

his investigation started, be was required to pursue it wherever it led, and to “report all 

such facts to the governor.” Art. 1.03, Taxation-General, V.T.C.S. We think the 

comptroller is under the same duty, and that his investigative powers under article 1.03, 

Taxation-General , V.T.C.S., are wholly derivative of a discretionary power in the 

governor to initiate investigations. 

We believe the legislature interpreted the predecessor of article 1.03, TaxationGeneral, V.T.C.S., in this way in 1929 when it first created the independent office of state 

auditor and efficiency expert. After granting the new officer authority to inspect books 

and records of all the departments of State Government and charging him to investigate 

custodians of public funds and disbursing officers and to examine all departments with 

special regard to duplication of efforts between departments, and the efficiency of their 

employees it concluded: 

P. 615 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Four (NW-192) 

Section 9. The fact that there is now no State Auditor and no 

official designated to audit and investigate the custodians of pubhc 

funds and the various departments of the State Government create 

an emergency . . . . Acts 1929, 41st Leg., lst C.S., ch. 91 at 222. 

(Emphasis added). 

In our opinion, article 1.03, Taxation-General, V.T.C.S., confers no independent 

power upon the comptroller to initiate investigations of state officers and institutions, but 

the governor is empowered to use the comptroller as his agent for such purposes. 

In light of the foregoing discussion, we turn to your specific questions. The first to 

be addressed, is: 

Is the implied &ty and power conferred upon the Comptroller to 

make inquiry and examine, without prior notice, all of the financial 

records in the possession of any person or state agency authorized 

by law to receive state money, for the purpcee of determining if 

there are any such persons who have received and not accounted 

for any money that belongs to the state? For example, does the 

Comptroller have the power to conduct an audit at any time, 

without notice, of the records of any county tax assessor-collector 

in this state for the purpose of verifying that all state ad valorem 

tax and all state motor vehicle sales tax that has been collected by 

the assessor-collector has been reported and remitted to the state 

in accordance with TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 7260 (Vernon 

1960) and TEX. TAX.-GEN. ANN. art. 6.07 (Vernon Supp. 

1978-1979)? And does the Comptroller have the power to conduct 

an audit at any time, without notice, of the Alcoholic Beverage 

Commission for the purpose of determining whether or not all 

permit fees and all taxes collected by the Commission on the sales 

of distilled spirits? wine, beer, ale end malt liquor have been 

reported to his office and remitted to the Treasurer in accordance 

with TEX. ALCOH. BEV. CODE ANN. 5202.04, S205.02 and 5205.03 

(Vernon 1978)? 

The question, as stated, has very broad implications. For example, “all the financial 

records in the possession of any person . . . authorized . . . to receive state money” would 

encompass even the personal checkbooks and federal income tax returns of state 

employees advanced travel funds. Cf. Attorney General Opinion H-74 (1973) (advance of 

expenses to state employees). Thexmptroller has no power to examine all records of 

such a broad description. Of course, be may make inquiry in a proper case, and it may be 

his duty to do so. Article 4344, V.T.C.S., &es not empower the comptroller “to conduct 

an audit at any time, without notice, of the records of any county tax assessor” in order to 

verify that state taxes have been remitted to the state in accordance with article 7260, 

V.T.C.S., and article 6.07, Taxation-General, V.T.C.S. See Attorney General Opinion 

C-447 (1965 1. Compare the uses of the word “audit”in May v. Wilcox Furniture 

Downtown, Inc., 450 S.W.2d 734, 739 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1970, writ rePd 

P. 616 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Five (MW-192) 

n.r.e.), and in City of Houston v. Chapman, 145 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 

1940, writ dism’d, judg . corr. . 

The derivative nature of the comptroller’s investigatory power over public agencies 

contrasts sharply with the independent power to investigate private business concerns 

accorded him by article 1.031, Taxation-General, V.T.C.S.. He has the power to settle the 

accounts of local tax collecting officers and to require proofs of the accuracy of the 

accounts before doing so, but under article 4344, V.T.C.S., he has no authority to demand 

to see the books and records of local officers except to verify accounts or claims. In a 

proper case ha may condition approval of an account submitted by a local officer on the 

presentation to him of further proofs, but if access to a local official’s books and records 

is refused, he must leave the account unsettled and refer the matter to other officers 

having general investigative powers, unless the governor has directed him to proceed 

under article 1.03, Taxation-General. See R og ers v. (L ynn, 49 S.W.2d 709 (Tex. Comm!n 

App. 1932); Gallaway v. Sheppard, 89 S.W.2d 417 Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1935, writ 

dism’d). See V.T.C.S. art. 7260, S 7; Tax.-Gen. art. 6.02, V.T.C.S. art. 4344, SS 3, 7, 8. Cf 

Attorney &era1 Opinion G-4260 (1941). 

- 

Nor hes he any independent authority to audit the Alcoholic Beverage Commission 

with respect to permit fees and taxes. 

You also ask: 

The comptroller is responsible for determining who owes money to the state and how 

. . . . . . . . . . much they owe, but he dDes not have tne exclusive responslbulty or comprenenslve power 

to do so. Article 4344, section 10, V.T.C.S., makes it the duty of the comptroller to: 

Is the Comptroller responsible for determining who owes money to 

the state and how much they owe ? If so, is the implied duty and 

power conferred upon the Comptroller to make inquiry end examine 

any contract for goods and services provided and paid for by the 

state for the purpose of determining whether or not the state has 

received what it paid for? For example, does the Comptroller have 

the right to investigate the supply purchase and inventory records 

of the Utility Department of the University of Texas at Austin for 

the purpose of determining the identity of the debtor(s) and 

amounts owed, if he has reason to believe that state money has 

been paid for supplies that were never delivered to the state? 

Examine and settle the accounts of all persons indebted to the 

State and certify the amount or balance to the Treasurer, and 

direct and superintend the collection of all monies due the State. 

However, in 1912 the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the comptroller lacked power to 

independently determine facts that purported to sipport a sheriff’s claim for monies 

certified correct by a district court. The comptroller had reason to suspect fraud. The 

Supreme Court said, however: 

P. 617 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Six (MW-192 1 

The character of the examination must be defined by the means 

which the law furnishes to enable the officer to perform the duty 

enjoined. . . . 

The Comptroller. . . has no power to secure evidence. It cannot be 

denied that his means of examination Is confined to the copy of the 

record; therefore, his examination must be confined to that as a 

report. . . . 

Indeed . . . the Comptroller has no facts nor power to obtain facts 

upon which to act otherwise than to test the work of the clerk. 

Rochelle v. Lane, 148 S.W. 558 (Tex. 1912) at 559, 560. 

Twenty years later, after the office of state auditor and efficiency expert had been 

created, the foregoing decision was modified by Rogers v. Lynn, supra, another case of 

suspected fraud. The Rochelle v. Lane holding that the comptroller could not go behind 

the certification presented to himwas overturned, and the comptroller was permitted to 

assert that article 4350, V.T.C.S., forbade him to issue a warrant to a person whose 

fraudulent schemes made him indebted to the state. But the court in Rogers v. LyNI, 

s 

+I 

ra, did not bold or imply that the comptroller possessed independent power to “obtain 

acts other than those deducible from the formal records presented him for review. 

Although the Rogers v. Lynn court held that no warrant should be issued unless the 

comptroller finds the claim “correct,” meaning “just and legal,” the factual allegations 

which the court believed were made by both the comptroller and the state auditor. Both 

officers alleeed thev exercised the DOW= and duties imoCeed uoon them bv law “to 

carefully ex;mine arid investigate these accounts,” and found them fraudulent. ~49 S.W.2d 

710. See also Gallaway v. Sheppard, B, (comptroller disallowed sheriff’s claim as a 

resultaudit by the auditor). 

The comptroller has some discretion under article 4344, V.T.C.S., in approving 

claims and accounts, and in determining amounts owed the state, but he may not exercise 

that discretion in an arbitrary or absolute manner. See Fulmore v. Lane, 140 S.W. 405 

(Tex. 1911). Nor &es it allow him independently to in.$&t the books and records of other 

officials without invitation. See Navarro County v. T-ullcs, 237 S.W. 982 (Tex. Civ. App. 

- Dallas 1922. writ rePd1. Though such records might be otherwise available to the 

comptroller, an unlimited special right of access to them is not given him by article 4344, 

V.T.C.S. Cf. V.T.C.S. article 6252-17a (Open Records Act). 

- 

Consequently, the comptroller has no independent right under article 4344, V.T.C.S., 

to “investigate the supply, purchase and inventory records of the Utility Department of 

the University of Texas at Austin for the purpose of determining the identity of the 

debtors and the amounts owed .‘I Of course, he should report his suspicions to the governor 

or the state auditor to obtain their assistance in bringing about an investigation. If an 

account of such property is kept in his office, he may require the persons having the 

management of it to “render statements thereof to him.” V.T.C.S. art. 4344, 5 7. 

P. 618 
, 

Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Seven (MW-1921 

Your question as to whether article 1.03, Taxation-General, V.T.C.S., “expressly” 

grants you “the authority to examine any state agency expenditures, such as those 

queried,” is answered by the foregoing discussions. The express authority granted by that 

statute is conditioned upon gubernatorial initiation. 

In a similar vein, you ask: 

Does the Comptroller have the right to investigate any state 

agency at any time for the purpose of assuring himself that no 

state employee salary warrants have previously been Issued to noneldstent employees? 

and 

Is the implied duty and power to inspect and evaluate the policies 

and methods followed by any person or state egency engaged in 

collecting money on behalf of the state conferred lpon the 

Comptroller? For example, &es the Comptroller have the right to 

inspect and evaluate the auditing and collection methods of the 

Alcoholic Beverage Commission with regard to all state taxes and 

fees collected by it? 

The comptroller has no broad, independent power “to investigate any state agency at 

any time for the purpose of assuring . . . that no state employee salary warrants have 

previously been issued to nonexistent employees.” Cf. Attorney General Opinion 

WW-1328 (1962) (comptroller lacks authority to determinewhether particular employment 

violated Position Classification Act). Article 4344 section 2, V.T.C.S., gives the 

comptroller power to adopt regulations essential to the speedy and proper assessment and 

collection of the revenues of the state. He is to prescribe the form used in collecting 

public revenue and to specify the manner in which they are to keep their accounts. 

V.T.C.S. art. 4344, S 5. Moreover, he may “suggest” plans for improving and managing the 

general revenue. g S 17. However, the comptroller has no independent power under 

article 4344, V.T.C.S., to subject the office procedures and methods of other officials to 

his on-the-spot scrutiny. He may do so as an agent for the governor under article 1.03, 

Taxation-General, V.T.C.S., but otherwise, that power and duty is vested in the state 

auditor. V.T.C.S. arts. 4413a-13, 4413a-14, 4413a-16. 

Another inquiry reads: 

Is the Comptroller impliedly required to keep a central record of 

all persons indebted or owing taxei to the state and to check all 

proposed expenditures of state money against such record, regardless of the nature or source of the liability to the state or whether 

the warrant is to be &awn against funds of the state that sre kept 

in or outside the State Treasury? 

P. 619 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Eight (MN-192) 

V.T.C.S., article 4344, section 9 makes it the duty of the comptroller to “keep and 

settle all accounts in which the state is interested,” without limitation. The state is 

“interested” in its funds whether kept in the state treasury or elsewhere. See Boyett v. 

467 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1971, writ rePd n.r.e.). A=1 dismissed 

sub nom. Anderson v. Calvert, 92 S. Ct. 1316 (1972); Attorney General Letter Advisory No. 

lx (1977). We conclude, therefore, that article 4344, V.T.C.S., contemplates the keeping 

of records by the comptroller that would enable him to identify persons indebted to the 

state or owing taxes to it. We think, too, that all warrants issued should be checked 

against the list of persons indebted to the state, for article 4350, V.T.C.S., specifies that 

no warrant is to issue to any person indebted to the state, or owing delinquent taxes to it. 

The determination that a person is indebted to the state for article 4350, V.T.C.S., 

purposes cbes not necessarily lie with the comptroller. An official allegation of 

indebtedness must be made by those empowered to make one. Attorney General Letter 

Advisory No. 57 (1973). Cf. Sherman v. Hatcher, 299 S.W. 227 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1927) 

(construing article 4350). - 

Another set of your questions centers upon section 11 of article 4344, V.T.C.S., which 

reads: 

Among other duties, the Comptroller shall: 

. ..I 

11. Audit the claims of all persons against the State in cases 

where provision for the payment thereof has been made by 

law, unless the audit of any such claim is otherwise 

specially provided for. 

You couple this provision with article 4357, V.T.C.S., which forbids the preparation of 

warrants except lpon the presentation of audited claims, and ask: 

Does the Comptroller have the duty and power to examine any such 

claimant regarding any matter that is material to his claim and to 

require him to produce any evidence necessary to verify the legal 

validity of his claim against the state, if the Comptroller considers 

such examination necessary? For example, was the Comptroller 

acting within the lawful limits of his authority when he sent a team 

of auditors to personnel of Southwest Texas State University for 

the purpose of determining whether or not vouchers previously 

skmitted by the University, approved by the Comptroller’s office, 

and paid by the Treasurer to persons for consulting services were in 

fact a subterfuge for payment of travel expenses incurred by those 

same persons as interviewees of the University? For example, does 

the Comptroller twve the power to visit the premises of any state 

agency at any time, without prior notice, and require an accounting 

P. 620 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Nine (III+192) 

of all employees listed on that sgency’s monthly payroll voucher 

filed with the Comptroller who are missing and unaccounted for, if 

any? 

You also ask: 

Is the Comptroller granted the authority to examine at any time 

the records, include any internal performance records used by any 

agency to measure its performance of its statutory functions for 

the purpose of advising the Governor, inter alla, whether or not the 

budget request sbmitted by that egv based on reliable 

information, if he has reason to believe that such records ere not 

being kept or are inaccurate or misleading? 

The earlier discussion is applicable to these questions. The comptroller has no 

authority to demand unnecessary proofs or to conduct inquisitions about the propriety of 

past agency actions. Attorney General Opinion C-447 (1965). He has no independent 

power to send auditors to state institutions of higher learning to examine records and 

personnel in an attempt to establish the bona fides of vouchers upon which he previously 

issued warrants. See Attorney General Letter Opinion, Book 381, page 797, addressed to 

Geo. H. Sheppard,and dated April 16,1938. Nor &es he possess independent power to visit 

state wencies for the purpose of requiring them to account for the people on their payroll 

vouchers that are not on the premises at the time he visits them. Those activities 

duplicate or parallel functions of the state auditor. The same applies to the examination 

for budgetary purposes of internal records used by agencies to measure their performance 

of statutory duties. If the governor wishes the comptroller to take a more active 

investigatory role in establishing a basis for advice regarding budget requests, he may 

direct him to &J so. The comptroller &es have the duty to satisfy himself that claims 

presented to him are legal claims for wm valid appropriations have been made, and to 

refer suspicious claims to agencies with larger investigatory powers., but if he refuses to 

issue a warrant when his legal duty to do so is clear, mandamus will lie. Norris v. Bullock, 

580 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1979); S & G Construction Co., Inc. v. Bullock, 545 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. 

1977). Cf. Denison v. Sheppard, 60 S.W.2d 1031 (Tex. 1933) (right unclear). 

- 

Two other questions are as follows: 

With regard to the general duty to ‘superintend and menage the 

fiscal concerns of the State, as the sole accounting officer thereop 

provided in TEX. REV. STAT. ANN. art. 4344, S3 (Vernon 19761, and 

in view of the specific accounting and investigatory responsibilities 

expressly provided in art. 4344, 59, art. 4344b, S2, art. 4348 

(Vernon 1976), and TEX. TAX.-GEN. ANN. art. 1.03 (Vernon 1969) 

. . . . 

Is the Comptroller expressly given the duty and power to keep an 

accounting record of all receipts and disbursements of all state 

agencies and to check up and examine any such account for the 

p. 621 
Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Ten (MW-192) 

purpcee of determining its accuracy and legal conformity, 

regardless of whether or not the actual funds of any such account 

are kept in or outside the State Treasury? 

Do any of the State Auditor’s duties provided in TEX. REV. CIV. 

STAT. ANN. arts. 4413(a) - 7a et seq. (Vernon 1976) duplicate any of 

the duties imposed upon the Comptroller by TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. 

ANN. art. 4344 et se (Vernon 1976) and TEX. TAX.-GEN. ANN. 

art. 1.03 (Vernon -9 1969 m terms of serving identical purposes? 

Your question regarding the combined effects won your powers of articles 4344, 

sections 3 and 9; 4344b, section 2; 4348, V.T.C.S.; and article 1.03, Taxation-General, 

V.T.C.S., are also answered above for the most part. Those provisions are to be read with 

other statutory provisions. The comptroller is under a duty to keep records of all accounts 

in which the state is interested, including accounts of funds and property maintained 

outside the state treasury, and to “audit” the accounts furnished him by state agencies for 

internal accuracy and facial legality. See Attorney General Opinion M-625 (1970X Cf. 

Fort Worth Cavalry Club v. Sheppard, 83TW.2d 660 (Tex. 1935); Corsicana Cotton Mills7 

Sheppard, 71 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. 1934) flack of valid appropriations for claims). But he has no 

Independent power to conduct out-of-the-office investigations of suspected misrepresentations. That is a function of the state auditor, or of other officers, to whom the 

comptroller should report his suspicions, along with any internal evidence to support them 

that he has found in the accounts or reports submitted to him. 

Your other question turns the basic inquiry around. You ask, “Do any of the State 

Auditor’s [statutory] duties . . . duplicate any of the duties imposed upon the Comptroller 

[by statute] in terms of serving identical purposes ?I’ If your question is limited to duties 

inde endentl imposed won the comptroller, the answer is “No,” for the accounting and 

- weal swervlsory duties given the comptroller by article 4344, V.T.C.S., and similar 

statutes are complemented, not duplicated, by the auditing and investigatory duties 

imposed upon the state auditor. But the answer is “Yes” if the question encompasses those 

duties which may be assigned the comptroller by the governor pursuant to article 1.03, 

Taxation-General, for that statute anticipates that the governor may employ the 

comptroller as his egent to perform many investigatory or auditing tasks which duplicate 

those the state auditor is empowered to undertake. The arrangement provides a check 

upon the power of the state auditor and a means of testing the efficiency and fidelity of 

his office. The traditional appropriation act rider discussed in Attorney General Opinion 

H-1063, (1977), (see General Appropriations Act, Acts 1979, 66th Leg., article V, section 30 

at V-45), does not affect the governor’s power. It &es no more than prohibit the 

expenditure of appropriated funds for hiring independent commercial auditors or private 

auditing firms to do what the office of the state auditor is designed and equipped to do. 

See Attorney General Letter Opinion, Book 365, page 815, addressed to G. R. White and 

dated July 17,1935, 

P. 622 
” . 

Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Eleven (NW-192) 

Lastly, you ask, “Have any of the Comptroller’s duties and powers been repealed by 

implication and transferred to the State Auditor?” 

On the basis of a 1948 opinion of this office, Attorney General Opinion H-1063 (1977) 

concluded that the 1929 and 1943 legislation establishing, first, the executive office of 

state auditor and efficiency expert and, later, the legislative office of state auditor, 

repealed by implication any independent authority the comptroller might hve had 

theretofore to initiate investigations and examinations of the books and records of state 

agencies when those activities would duplicate or parallel the duties of the state auditor. 

See Attorney General Letter Opinion R-1404 (1948). 

- 

As discussed above, such independent authority never rested in the comptroller. 

Reliance by H-1063 (1977) on the doctrine of implied repealer was unnecessary. However, 

we reaffirm the conclusion of Attorney General Opinion H-1063 (1977) that the state 

comptroller of public accounts possesses no independent authority to duplicate or parallel 

the functions of the state auditor in initiating or conducting external, non-consensual 

audits and examinations of the books and records of state agencies. 

SUMMARY 

The state comptroller of public accounts possesses no independent 

authority lo duplicate or parallel the functions of the state auditor 

in initiating or conducting external, non-consensual audits and 

examinations of the books and records of state egencies, although 

he does possess such authority when acting at the direction of the 

governor. 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Bruce Youngblood 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 623 
. . - 

Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Twelve (Mw-192) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Walter Davis 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

Diane Van Helden 

Bruce Youngblood 

P. 624