. 

Honorable Charles H. Theobold 

County Attorney 

Galveston County 

Galveston, Texas 

Dear Mr. Theobold: Opinion No. o-5890 

Re: Authority of County Commissioners to authorize an employee to approve payroll. 

Your letter of recent date received in this office. 

We quote the following from same: 

"The payroll for the first half of February 

was properly prepared but the commissioner did 

not approve the same with his signature but sent 

a pencil note to the county engineer to permit 

the commissioner's foreman to sign the payroll 

for the Commissioner. The county auditor refused 

to accept such an approval and insisted that the 

commissioner should sign the payroll in person. 

"There is nothing to show that the commissioner was physically incapacitated or that he 

was ill or any reason why he authorized his foreman to approve the payroll in the commissioner's 

name. 

"I respectfully request that you render me 

an opinion for the inoormation of the county auditor as to whether a county commissioner may authorize one of his employees, who is also on the 

payroll, to avorove the payroll by signing the commissioner's name * * T." (Underscoring ours). 

"I am led to the conclusion that this is one 

of the personal acts that must be performed by 

that official and cannot be delegated to another." 

At the First Called Session of the 33rd Legislature of 

Texas (1913) there was enacted a statute creating a road system 

for Galveston County. This Act is known as "House Bill No. 73, 

Chapter 10 of the Special Laws" enacted by such Legislature, 

and became effective August 19, 1913. 
Honorable Charles H. Theobola - page 2 O-5890 

provfde : 

Certain sections of said Act, enumerated as follows, 

"Section 1. That the members of the county 

commissioners court of Galveston shall be exofficio precinct road commissioners of their respective precincts, and under the direction of the 

county commissioners court shall have charge of all 

the teams, tools, machinery and road implements 

or appliances of every kind belonging to said 

county, and it shall be their duty under such rules 

and regulations as the said commissioners court 

may prescrfbe, to superintend the laying out of 

new roads, the making or changing of roads, and 

the bullding or repairing of bridges. Each county 

commissioner shall be entitled to receive from 

said county for his compensation as such precinct 

road commissioner the sum of $1500.00 per annum, 

payable in regular monthly Installments of $125.00 

per month, to be inclusive of other compensation 

allowed them by law, and. for the faithful performance of his du'cfes as such precinct road commissioner shall be liable on his bona given as such 

county commissioner. 

"i * * i i ** 

"Sec. 3. Each county commissioner shall have 

control over all road overseers of his precinct, 

and shall provide for each of them all teams, tools, 

machinery and appliances deemed necessary in laying 

out or working its roads In the precinct of such 

commissioner. The receipt of such overseer shall be 

taken for all such property turned over to him, and 

when he has finished his work, or at the close of 

his term of employment such overseer shall return 

to said commissioner all teams, tools and property 

coming into his hands." 

Said above mentioned Act was amended by Senate Bill No. 

286, Chapter 237 of the General and Special Laws of T;;;; it943) 

enacted by the 48th Legislature,in Regular Session. 

mendment became effective May 6, 1943, and added Section 2a providing for additional duties of the county commissioners, and 

Section 2b providing for the payment of traveling expenses to 

the county commissioners for certain duties performed. 

The validity of said Acts was upheld~in our Opinion 

Non. 0-5328 which was written in answer to a query from your 

present county auditor. As we presume you have access to such 
Honorable Charles R. Theobold - page 3 o-5890 

opinion, we will not enclose a copy herewith. 

Said House Bill No. 73, under which Galveston County 

is now operating, does not specifically provide for any report to be made by the ex-officio road commissioners of money 

expended or contracted to be expended for labor performed on 

county roads, bridges, etc. 

It is well settled, however, that a law~which confers a power or imposes a duty upon an officer carries with 

itby implication the authority to do such things as are 

reasonably necessary to carry into effect the power granted 

or the duty imposed. Thus power to do certain work or to accomplish a certain result, which cannot otherwise be accomplished, Implies the authority to employ such agents as may 

be reasonably necessary to accomplish the work or purpose 

specified, and to engage them for such,length of time as is 

reasonably necessary. (34 Tex. Jur. 444) 

Certainly, the filing of a claim for the payment of 

such agents or employees for their services performed would 

be one of the, r,easonably necessary duties incumbent upon such 

ex officio road commissioner. 

Article 1660, V.A.C.S., 1925, provides In regard to 

claims as follows: 

"All claims, bills and accounts against the 

county must be filed in ample time for the auditor 

to examine and approve same before~ the meetings. 

of the commissioners court. No claim, bill or account shall be allowed or paid until it has been 

examined and approved by the county auditor. The 

auditor shall examine the same and stamp his approval thereon. If he deems it necessary, all 

such accounts, bills, or claims must be verified 

by affidavit touching the correctness of the same. 

The auditor is hereby authorized to administer 

oaths for the purposes of this law.' 

'In the absence of a clear expression in the 

statute to the contrary it will be presumed that 

the Legislature intended that public duties which 

require the exercise of discretion should be performed by public officers." --Nail1 v'. State, 59 

Crim. Rep., 

1268. 

484, 129 S.W. 630, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 

In no event, in the case before us, could an agent or 

emp~loyee anorove the payroll, as such approval Is an exercise 

of discretion. 
, 

Honorable Charles H. Theobold- page 4 o-5890 

We will not discuss here whether same can be signed 

with the commissioner's name by an agent under some circumstances, as that is precluded by the auditor's refusal to 

accept the payroll so presented. In refusing to accept said 

payroll, we must presume the auditor was not acting arbitrarily but wasacting under the authority of law given him by said 

Article 1660, supra, to require that the claim be verified by 

affidavit which is a personal act that could be done only by 

the county counnissioner. 

Therefore, we agree with your conclusion as expressed 

in your letter. 

Roping the above fully answers your question, we are 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GFXERAL OF TRXAS 

By s/Robert L. Lattimore, Jr. 

RobertL. Lattimore, Jr. 

Assistant 

RI&-MR-WC 

APPROVED MAR 17, 1944 

s/Gee. P. Blackburn 

ATTORREY GENERAL OF TEXAS