JOHN L. HILL Attorney General 

# The Attorney General of Texas

December 19, 1978

Honorable William A.Meitzen Criminal District Attorney Fort Bend County Courthouse Richmond, Texas 77469 Opinion No.H- 1296 Re: Whether the commissioners court is required to approve a budget submitted by the juvenile board under article 5142d. Dear Mr.Meitzen: Youhave asked ifa county commissioners court isrequired to approve a budget prepared by the county juvenile board under article 5142d for the county probation department. Article 5142dprovides:

The Commissioners Courts of all counties in which Juvenile Officers or Probation Officer& or their assistants, are employed under existing laws of this State, shall fix the salaries to be paid such Juvenile Officers orProbation Officers and their assistants, and provide for their expenses, without limitation. Provided, that in counties where there is a Juvenile Board, said Board shall recommend the salary to be paid to such Juvenile Officer or Probation Officer and their assistants, which salary shall be approved by the Commissioners Court.

.. . You urge that the reasoning of Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. w, 471S.W.2d 100(Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1971,writ ref’d n.r.e.) and Commissioners Court of Hays County v. District Judge, 506S.W.2d630(Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.) suggests that the commissioners court is required to adopt the budget and salaries prepared by the juvenile board unless there is an abuse of discretion on the part of the board. These cases construed section 10ofarticle 42.12,Code ofCriminal Procedure, which at that time indicated that the district judge was authorized “with the advice and consent of commissioners court as hereinafter provided, to employ and designate the titles and fix the salaries of probation officers.” This statute was construed in conjunction with section 1of article 42.12which provided that it was the legislature’s purpose “to place wholly within the state courts of appropriate jurisdiction the responsibility for

... the supervision of

p. 5110Honorable William A.Meitzen - Page 2 (H-1296) J/

probationers.” Both the Amarillo and Austin courts construed this language to put responsibility for fixing the budget in the district judge with the responsibility of the commissioners court being to budget, appropriate and pay the expenditures established in the budget so long as the judge’s actions were not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious soas to amount to an abuse ofdiscretion. Article 51424 however, provides quite a different statutory standard. There isno provision to indicate that responsibility for juvenile officers is placed wholly within the authority of the juvenile court. Rather than specifically indicating that the salaries are tobe fixed bythe judiciary, article 5142dindicates that they are to be “recommended” by the juvenile board. Since the statute clearly provides that the board isto recommend rather than to fix the salary, we donot believe that the commissioners court isrequired to approve the salary recommended. SUMMARY The commissioners court isnot required to approve a salary or budget recommended by a juvenile board under article 51424 V.T.C.S.

Opinion Committee

p. 5111