### 0 EXAS

Mr. Henry Wade, Opinion No. WW-430. District Attorney, Dallas 2, Texas Re: Authority of Commissioners' Court to enter order on recommendationof auditor for method of paying food vendors for food supplies furnished Indigent citizens, and authority of county treasurer to refuse to apDear Sir: prove warrants issued therefor.

You have submitted for our considerationcertain questions concerning the followingproposedprocedure for processing food orders issued by the City-CountyWelfare Department of Dallas County. Paymentof these orders is made by the Commissioners'Court andyour questions concern the accountingprocedures involved in this proposedmethod of payment.

The following is a statement of the transactions which takeplace in this procedure:

Food orders for Indigentpersonsunder the jurisdiction of theWelfare Department are prepared in triplicate from case records on file at the City-CountyDepartment of PublicWelfare. A voucherpayable to the City-CountyWelfare Department fs then prepared for the total amount of food orders written for a particularperiod. This voucher, supported by the duplicate copies of the orderswritten, is then sent to the County Auditor's Office for pre-auditing. Upon completion of pre-auditprocedureby the County Auditor's office, the voucher is put upon the appropriate courtminutes and sent to the Commissioners'Court for approval.

After approvalby the Commissioners'Court a General Fund warrant In payment of the voucher is preparedby the County Clerk. Thewarrant is then returned to the County Auditor,where it is checked for correctness of payee. After this audit, thewarrant 1s signedby the County Auditor and Is forwarded to the County Clerk for his signature. After the signatureof the County Clerk, thewarrant then goes to the County Treasurer for his signatureand registration..

Mr. Henry Wade, Page 2 (WW-430).

The completedwarrant is then sentby the County Treasurer to the City-CountyWelfare Departmentwhere it is deposited by that office in a bank account establishedin the Mercantile National Bank, for the payment of food orders. It Is only after thiswarrant has been deposited that the original food orders are mailed out to thewelfare recipients. These recipients then take the orders to food suppliers of their choice,who fill the orders to the stipulatedvalue of the order after the recipient has placed his signature on the face of the order. The food supplier then places his name and address on the face of the order. After this is done the food order.becomes a draft payable at the Mercantile National Bank out of the account establishedby the deposit of the General Fund warrant Issued by the Commissioners1 Court.

The only further action taken In the payment of these claims Is by theWelfare Department and Dallas County In reconciling the bank account throughwhich the food order drafts have been cleared. Of course, the County Auditorpost-audits the records of the City-CountyWelfare Department each year.

On December 30, 1957, the Commissioners1Court of Dallas County duly enacted an orderwhich would authorize the above procedure. Subsequently, the bounty Treasurer of Dallas County refused to register and approve thewarrant drawn by the County Clerk payable to the City-County Department of Public Welfare. This refusalwas on the basis that the procedure did not complywith Articles 1627 and iTlO,Vernon's Civil Statutes, and for the further reason that it would delegate the duties and responsibilitiesof the County Treasurer to the City-CountyDepartment of PublicWelfare. The Treasurer in his statement of refusal to the Commissioners'Court requested that the order of December 30, 1957 be revoked until the legality of the proposed procedure couldbe determined.

The questionsyou present for our considerationare:

"1

. Is the proposedmethod of paying food vendors for food supplies furnished indigept citizens of Dallas County, Texas, legal?

"2. In the event the answer to Question No. 1 is in the affirmative, can the County Auditor, by mandamus action, compel the County Treasurer to approve and registerWarrant No. 12,923payable to the City-CountyDepartment of PublicWelfare?"

The general duties of the County Treasurerwith regard to the payment, registration and approval of warrants are set out in the following statutes.Mr. Henry Wade, Page 3 (WW-430).

Article 2554,Vernon's Civil Statutes,provides In part as follows:

"It shallbe the duty of the county treasurerupon the presentation to him of any warrant, check,voucher, or order drawn by the proper authority, If therebe funds sufficient for the payment thereof on deposit in the account againstwhich suchwarrant is drawn, to endorseupon the face of such instrumenthis order to pay the same to the payee named therein and to charge the same on his books to the fund upon which it Is drawn.

. . . All checks
or warrants issued or drawn by any officer under the provisions of thisAct, shallbe subject to all the laws and regulationsproviding for auditing and countersigningand all such laws and regulationsare hereby continued in full force and effect."

Article 

### 1627,V. C. S., provides:

"Said treasurer shall enter each claim in the register, stating the class to which it belongs, the name of the payee, the amount, the date of the claim, the date of registration, the number of such claim,by what authority Issued, and forwhat service the samewas Issued, and shallwrite on the face of the claim its registrationnumber, theword, 'registered,'the date of such registration, and shall sign his name officially thereto."

Article 1709,V.C.S., provides:

"The county treasurer shall receive all moneys belonging to the county from whatever source theymay be derived, and pay and apply the same as requiredby law, in such
manner as the commissionerscourt of his county may require and direct."

Article 1710,V.C.S., provides:

"The county treasurer shallkeep a true account of the receipts and expenditures of all moneyswhlch,shall come Into his hands by virtue of his office, and of the debts due to and from his county; and direct prosecutions according to law for the recovery of all debts thatmay be due his county, and superintend the collection thereof."- .,

Mr. Henry Wade, page 4 (WW-430).

Article 1713,V.C.S., provides:

"The county treasurer shall not pay any money out of the county treasury except in pursuance of a certificate orwarrant from some officer authorizedby law to issue the same; and, if such treasurer shallhave any doubt of the legality or propriety of any order, decree, certificateor warrant presented to him for payment, he shall not pay the same,but shall make report thereof to the commissioners court for their consideration and direction."

It is under the termsof Article 1713, supra, that the County Treasurer of Dallas County has refused to register and approve thewarrant in question.

Under the provisions of Article 2351,Vernon's Civil Statutes, the Commissioners1Court of Dallas County has the power and duty to support and provide for paupers who are residents of their county andwho are unable to support themselves. As a general rule of law, the CommisslonerstCourt rather than the Treasurer of the County Is the guardian of the CountyFunds. Hurley v. Buchanan, 233 S.W. 590 (Tex.Clv. App. 1921, error dlsm.). As such guardian It has a great latitude of discretion in the management of the county finances to effectuate its granted powers. As w,asstated In the case of Davis v. Burney, 

### 58 Tex. 

### 364 (1883):

"From the very nature of the case the commissioners courtmust have considerabledlscretlon In its management of county finance as towhen and how the county Indebtedness Is to be paid and in providing the means for payment. In suchmatters It would be Impracticable for the legislature to descend Into the particulars, and undertake to confer expresspowers upon the court In themanagement of such a complicatedmatter in everyminute detail. All thatwas Intended by or could have been expected of the leglslature In this regard,would be to conferupon the court such general powers by express legislation,as, when supplementedby such as will be necessarily implied,will attain the purposes of county government, and secure Its efficient and economical admlnlstratlon."Mr. Henry Wade, Page 5 (WW-430).

As we have stated, the County Auditor of Dallas County has suggested this accounting and disbursement system. We are of the opinion that the above quoted authorities imply that the Commlssloners~Court shallhave the power to make disbursements in a manner designed to effectively carry out Its specificpowers. The method of disbursementdescribed in your opinion request
seems to be an efficient, economical,andwell controlledmethod of disbursing themany smallwelfare checkswhich Dallas County Is required to handle. Further, we are unable to see that this accounting and disbursing procedure infringesupon any of the duties or responsibilitiesof the County Treasurer of Dallas County.

We think It clear that it is the County Treasurer's duty to pay and apply the funds of the County as requiredby law in the manner and by the method directed and requiredby the Commissioners'Court of the County. Article 1709,V. C. S., supra. However, the &reasurer does have some discretion as to the payment of thewarrants submittedby the CommissIonersI Court. If he has doubts as to the validity or legality of the warrants, he Is not to pay the same,but is to report his objection to the Commlsslonerst Court in accordancewith Article 1713, Vernon's Civil Statutes. The Treasurer's llabllity in this situation is clearly set out In the case of McDonald v. Farmer, 56 S.W. 555 (Tex.Civ. App., 1900),wherein the Court stated:

"When the treasurerhas no reason to doubt the legality or the propriety of a warrant presented to him for payment, it Is his duty to pay it; and, having paid it In the discharge of his duty, he ought not to be held liable to the fund out of which It has been paid. He must, however, act in good faith, :and exercise care and prudence tomake no payment for which the County or School District should not be heid liable.

. . .Whether or not he shouldbe protectedin the paymentwould be a fact to be determinedby his care and good faith. He should take care to see that the warrant had been drawn by theproper authority, and in accordancewith law. He cannothave credit for a warrant Issued for an Illegal claim, if he has reason to believe that the demand for which it was issued
was in fact illegal."
Having concluded, therefore, that the general control and management of county finances rests in the Commissioners' Court, and having further concluded that the accountingprocedure above describeddoes not amount to a delegation of the functions of the County Treasurerunder Articles 1710 and 1627,Mr. Henry Wade, Page 6 (WW-430).

Vernon's Civil Statutes, It is our opinion and you are so advised that the above described system of disbursementof the funds of Dallas County is valid and In conformitywith the statutesof the State of Texas.

In view of our answer to your first question,we presume that the County Treasurer of Dallas Countywill carry out his functions as County Treasurer In processing and paying the warrant Issuedby the County Clerk to begin this disbursing procedure. Accordingly,we deem it unnecessary to answeryour second question concerningwhether mandamuswould Iie against the Treasurer to requirehis approval of thewarrants issued by the County Clerk.

SuMMaRY

The statedproposed system of making disbursementsby the Commissioners' Court of Dallas County of welfare payments through an Impressedbank account Is a validmeans of payment of such obligations of the county.

Yours very truly,

WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

JHM:wb:pf APPROVED:

OPINION COMMITTEE

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman

Jack Goodman J. Mark McLaughlin J. ~ArthurSandlln REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL B$: W. V. Geppert.