. -

HonorableHenry Wade, Page 2 (WW-1107)

the bond of such depository. Thereafter the officermay draw checks on the County Treasurer to disburse said funds In the ent of salariesand e i%$,iy ;z,,o; I;,~;rne~;"?E~~~~ P # whom said funds may b&on&. rp Th e Treasurer and th depositoryshall make no payment unless'suchcheek 1% countersigned by .the County Auditor.

. . ." (Bnphasls added) The underscoredsectionsof this statute do give the County Treasurerauthority to disburse funds in the payment of salariesand expenses. However, your situation fulfillsneither of the statutoryrequirements,I.e., the deductionhas not been "authorized by law" In light of reasoningto be set forth below, nor does lt~"belong" to the Dallas County Einployees Credit Union. Cur research Indicatesthat there are only two Texas statutesdealing with payroll deductionsand both of them apply only for apeclflcdeduotlons. Article 3.51 of the InsuranceCode, Vernon's Civil Statutes,allowa payroll deductions for employees' contrlbutlons to group health Insurancepolicies. Attention la' also directed to AttorneyGeneral'sOpinion No. V-711 (1948) which held that the deduction for this purpose was not the function of the County Auditor,but should be performedby the County Treasurer. We affirm this holding In that a statute waa passed to provide for such deductions, .and, under our present interpretation of Article 1656a, sunra, the County Treasurer 1% the one to make deductions In euch a case, countersigned

by the County Auditor. Article 6252-3, Vernon's Civil Statute%, also authorize% deductions from employee%' salaries,but only for the purpose of buying United States Savings Bonds. Reference Is made to Subsection 10 of Article 2351 of Vernon*6 Civil Statuteswherein the coIIplllssloner8' court shall: -"Auditand settle all accounts against the oounty and direct their payment."Honorable Henry Wade, Page.3 @W-1107)

Payment to the Credit Union would not be settling an account "against the county" a% the Individualemployeehas areated the obligationand not the county. Since the commissioners' court ha% no express power to make payroll deductions,It cannot rely on Its Implied power for atithorlzlng

this type of dlsburaement. In Canales v. Laughlin, 147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W.2d 451, 453 (l$FbJ, the Supreme Court stated:

"The Constitution

does not confer ofi the commissioners

courts 'generalauthorltg over the county business' and such courts can exercise only such powers as the ConstitutionItself or the statuteshave 'specifically

conferredupon them.' While the commlsalonerscourt% have a'b&oid discretion In exercisingpowers expressly conferred on them, neverthelessthe legal basis for any action by any such court must be ultimately found In the Constitutionor the statutes." For other ca%es denying the u%e of Implied powers in absence of a statute. see Iasater v. Taoez. 110 Tnx - ._ -_=--, --- _---. 217 S.W. 373 (1919);Moon v. Alred, 277 Sk 1925, error dism. w.0.j.); Hill v. Sterrett; 787,(Clv'~~~ (Clv.App.1952, error ref. n.r.e.1. 252 S.W.id 766 Consequently,

we must hold that the auditor or even the treasurer~may

not make such deductions. The Legislature has spoken twice regardingpayroll deductions land each time for a specificpurpose. In your situation such deductionsare not legal unless %peclflcally authorizedby atatute. SUMMARY When an employee of Callas County requests and authorizesa payroll deduction to be paid to the Dallas County Bnployees Credit Union, the county auditor cannot legally make such deductions In absence of a statute, even If such acts are dulyHonorable Henry'Wade,Page 4 (WW-1107)

authorizedby the Commleslonera~ court. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General oi' Texas

By: &g?&Q&Q Fred D. Ward Assistant FDW:mm:ms APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Wlll.lsm

E. Allen Houghton Brownlee,Jr. Raymond V. Loftin, Jr. L. P. Lollar REVIEWEDFORTHEATTORNEYOENERAL BY: Morgan Nesbltt