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: 

You have asked if a county commissioners court is required to approve a 

budget prepared by the county juvenile board under article 5142d for the 

county probation department. Article 5142d provides: 

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 or Probation 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, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.) and 

Commissioners Court of Hays County v. District Judge, 506 S.W.2d 630 (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 10 of article 42.12, Code of Criminal 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 1 of article 42.12 which 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. 5110 
Honorable 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 so as to amount to an abuse of discretion. 

Article 51424 however, provides quite a different statutory standard. There 

is no 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 to be fixed by the judiciary, article 5142d indicates that they are to 

be “recommended” by the juvenile board. Since the statute clearly provides that 

the board is to recommend rather than to fix the salary, we do not believe that the 

commissioners court is required to approve the salary recommended. 

SUMMARY 

The commissioners court is not required to approve a salary 

or budget recommended by a juvenile board under article 

51424 V.T.C.S. 

Opinion Committee 

p. 5111