- . 

February 26, 1953 

Hon. Henry Wade Opinion No. S-12 

District Attorney 

Records Building Re: Authority of the commlsDallas, Texas sloners ' court to employ 

persons to work in each 

commissioner's precinct 

rather than allowing each 

oommleeloner to select 

Dear Sir: his precinct employees. 

You have requeated an opinion on the following questions: 

"Doe8 the Commisaionersl Court employ 

and approve by name the persons worktig in 

each Commissioner's precinct, or does It 

merely approve the position and allow the 

Commissioner of that precinct to employ and 

discharge whomever he ohoosee? . . . We 

would also like to know If this would apply 

to all elected offlcee." 

Section 4 of the Dallae County Road Law (Chapter 458, Acts 47th Legislature, Regular Session, 1941, 

page 729, a8 amended by Chapter 311, Acts 51st Leglslature, Regular Sesslon~, 1949, page 579) provide8 in part: 

"The Commlseloneret Court shall have, 

and is hereby given, authority to employ, 

and discharge all persons neceesary to perform all the provldloiae of thie Act;" 

In construing the provisions of Section 4 of 

the Dallas County Road Law, it is stated in HIM v. 

Sterrett, 252 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.Clv.App. 1952, error ref. 

-that the authority placed In the Commissioners' 

Court is cumulative of the authority already vested In 

It by Section 18 of Article V of the Constitution of 

Texas and Article 2351, Vernon48 Civil Statutes, for 

hiring employees relative to county bualness, 
Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (S-12) 

Whenever e power is Vested in the Commissioners’ 

Court, the authority must be exeroised by the court as 

a unit and not by the IndlvlduELl commissioners. Stovall 

v. Shivers, 

+f--ws 

129 Tex. 256, 103 SIW.2d 363 

147 Tex. 169 214 S.W.2d 451 

(1937 

B 

; lt!ZXkZ 

(194 );Rowan 

237 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.Clv.App. 1951). It 

stated in iowan v, Plckett at page 737: 

“That the Commissioners I Court Is something more than the Individuals composing :, 

the body Is no longer an open question. 

“‘By Article 2342 of the Revised Statutes, It 18 provlded that the several commissioners, together with the county judge, 

shall compose the “comrnl8slonera court ,” 

Such court is manifestly a unit, and Is the 

agency of the whole county. The respective 

members of the commiesloners court are 

therefore prlmarlly representatives of the 

whole county, and not merely representatives of their respective precincts. The 

duty of the commissioners court is to transact the business, protect the Interests, and 

promote the welfare of the county as a 

whole. t Stovall v. Shivers, 129 Tex. 256, 

103 S.W.2d 363, 366. 

‘And, as stated more recently by the 

Texas~Supreme Court in Cenalee v. Laughlin, 

147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W.2d 451, 455; ‘Furthermore, the individual oommlrrlonera have no 

authorIt. to bind the county by their aeparate 

action.’ ’ 

Since the authority to employ persons necessary to carry out the provisions of the Dallas County 

Road Law is placed in the Commissioners Court of Dallas 

County, it is our opinion that the Individuals must be 

employed by the Commissioners Court acting as a unit 

rather than being employed by individual cbmmissioners. 

asking 

Referring to the portlon of your question 

“If this would apply to a11 elected offices”, we 

assume that you refer to the method of appointment of 

deputies, assistants, 

and precinct officers. 

or clerks of district, count,y, 
, !; -- 

-. - 

Hon. Henry wade, page 3 (S-12) 

The Legislature has 

that the deputies, assistants, 

districts, county and precinct 

oonslstently 

or clerks of 

--_ _-- 

provided 

various 

officer8 wlu De appointed by the ofricer whom the assistant, deputy, or 

olerk will assist. Articles 324-331b; 3902; 3912e, 

Sec. 19; 39126-2; 39126-4; 3912e-4a; 3912e-4b; 3912e40, V.C.S. 

In construing the provisions of Article 3902, 

it 1s stated in Neeper v.. Stewart, 66 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 

Clv.App. 1933, error ref.): 

“A public policy Is thereby manlfested In oase of county and precinct officers generally to empower such officer 

to select their deputies or assistants and 

to forbid the commissioner’s court, or any 

member thereof, from attempting to Influence 

such officers In their selection of asslstants. The reason for this policy la obvious. 

Officers elected to discharge public trusts, 

and upon whom the responslbillty for the 

proper discharge thereof rests, should be 

free to select persons of their own choice 

to assist them in Its discharge.” 

We, therefore, agree with your conclusion that, 

unless covered by some special statute applicable to a 

particular office, elected officers other than county 

commissioners may appoint their own deputies, assistants, 

or clerks without submitting the names of the appointees 

to the oommlssloners~ court for approval. 

SUMMARY 

Individuals employed pursuant to the 

provisions of the Dallas County Road Law must be 

employed by the Commissioners1 Court of Dallas 

County, acting as a unit, rather than being 

employed by lndlvldual oonunlesloners. Elected 

oif'loera, other than county commissioners, may 

appoint their omr deputies, assistants, or clerks 

without submitting the names of the appointees 

to the Commissioners aourt for approval. 
. . 

Hon. Henry Wade, page 4 (S-12) 

- . 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General 

Willis E. Gresham 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trotti 

First Assistant 

Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

JR:am