.

Honorable CharlesH. Theobold County Attorney Galveston County Galveston, Texas
Dear Mr. Theobold: OpinionNo. 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:

"Thepayroll for the first half of February was properlyprepared but the commissionerdid not approve the samewith his signaturebut 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 commissionerwas physically incapacitatedor that he was ill or any reason why he authorized his foreman to approve the payroll in the commissioner's name. "Irespectfullyrequest that you render me an opinion for the inoormationof the county auditor as to whether a county commissionermay authorize one of his employees,who is also on the payroll, to avorove the payroll by signing the commissioner'sname * * T." (Underscoringours).
"Iam led to the conclusion that this is one of the personalacts thatmust be performed by that official and cannot be delegated to another."
At the First Called Session of the 33rd Legislature of Texas (1913) therewas enacted a statute creating a road system for Galveston County. This Act is known as "HouseBill No. 73, Chapter 10 of the Special Laws" enactedby such Legislature, and became effectiveAugust 19, 1913.Honorable CharlesH. Theobola - page 2 O-5890

provfde:

Certain sections of saidAct, enumeratedas follows,

"Section 1. That the members of the county commissionerscourt of Galveston shallbe exofficioprecinct road commissioners of their respectiveprecincts,and under the direction of the county commissionerscourt 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 superintendthe laying out of new roads, the making or changing of roads, and the bullding or repairing of bridges. Each county commissioner shallbe entitled to receive from said county for his compensationas such precinct road commissionerthe sum of $1500.00per annum, payable in regular monthly Installments of $125.00 per month, to be inclusiveof other compensation allowed them by law, and.for the faithfulperformance of his du'cfes as such precinct road commissioner shallbe 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 orworking its roads In the precinct of such commissioner. The receipt of such overseer shallbe taken for all suchproperty turned over to him, and when he has finished hiswork, or at the close of his term of employment such overseer shallreturn to said commissionerall teams, tools and property coming intohis hands." Said above mentionedAct was amended by Senate BillNo. 286, Chapter 237 of the General and Special Laws of T;;;; it943) enacted by the 48th Legislature,inRegular Session. mendment became effective May 6, 1943, and added Section 2a providing for additionalduties of the county commissioners,and Section 2b providing for the payment of traveling expenses to the county commissioners for certainduties 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 suchHonorable CharlesR. Theobold - page 3 o-5890

opinion,we will not enclosea copy herewith.

Said House Bill No. 73, underwhich Galveston County is now operating,does not specificallyprovide for any report to be made by the ex-officioroad commissionersof money expended or contracted to be expended for labor performed on county roads, bridges, etc.

It iswell settled,however, that a law~which confers a power or imposes a duty upon an officer carrieswith itby implicationthe authority to do such things as are reasonably necessary to carry into effect the power granted or the duty imposed. Thus power to do certainwork or to accomplish a certainresult, which cannot otherwisebe 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. (34Tex. Jur. 444)

Certainly, the filing of a claim for the payment of such agents or employees for their servicesperformedwould be one of the,

r,easonably

necessaryduties incumbentupon such ex officioroad 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 samebefore~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 stamphis 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 itwill be presumed that the Legislature intended that public duties which require the exercise of discretion should be performed by public officers." --Nail1v'.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 CharlesH. Theobold- page 4 o-5890

We will not discuss herewhether same can be signed with the commissioner'sname 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 affidavitwhich is a personal act that could be done only by the county counnissioner.

Therefore,we agreewith your conclusion as expressed in your letter.

Ropingthe above fully answers your question,we are Very truly yours ATTORNEY GFXERAL OF TRXAS
By s/RobertL. Lattimore, Jr. RobertL. Lattimore, Jr. Assistant
RI&-MR-WC

APPROVED MAR 17, 1944 s/Gee. P. Blackburn ATTORREYGENERAL OF TEXAS