h’ 

. 

September 8, 1970 

Honorable Henry Wade 

District Attorney 

Opinion No. M-689 

Dallas County Government Center Re: Does the Commissioners 

Dallas, Texas 75202 Court of Dallas have the 

authority, jointly with a 

Home Rule City, to either 

act as a Community Action 

Agency under the Economic 

Opportunity Act of 1964 

(42 U.S.C. 2781 et seq.) 

or to designate another 

group to serve as a ComDear Mr. Wadei munity Action Agency. 

You have requested our opinion on two questions, as 

follows: 

“(1) Does the Commissioners Court have the 

authority to act as Community Action Agency on a 

joint basis wrth a City Gwernment existing under 

the Home Rule Charter? 

"(2) Could the Commissioners Court jointly 

with a city operating under a Home Rule Charter, 

designate another group to serve as the Community 

Action Agency under existing laws and Constitution 

that governs the Commissioners Court?" 

We consider and answer your first question in the aff irmative. 

Our opinion is that a county and a home rule city may 

work together as a community action agency under either of two 

modes of collaboration: a) a simple contractual joint endeavor, 

or b) as a Regional Planning Commission or Council of Governments 

organized and operating under Article lOllin, Vernon"5 Civil Statute8. 

+ All references in this Opinion to Articles are to Articles of 

Vernon'5 Civil Statutes unless otherwiae indicated. 

-3315- 
xonorable Henry wade, page 2 (M-669) 

This office recently held in Attorney General's Opinion 

Number M-264 (1968) that a Commissioners Court, acting alone, did 

not have the power either to act as !& community action agency 

by itself, or to designate another entity to act as such for it. 

A community action agency is defined in Title 42, U.S. 

Code Annotated, Section 2790 (a) as follows: 

"A community action agency shall be a State 

or political subdivision of a State (having elected 

or duly appointed governing officials), or a combination of such political subdivisions, or a public or 

private nonprofit agency or organization which has 

been designated by a State or such a political subdivision or combination of such subdivisions, which-- 

(1) has the power and authority and will perform the functions set forth in Section 2795 of this 

title, including the power to enter into contracts 

with public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations to assist in fulfilling the purposes of this 

subchapter, and 

(2) is determined to be capable of planning, 

conducting, administering and evalua%ing a ccmmunity 

action program and is currently designated as a community action agency by the Director." 

Sub-section (b) of said Section 2790, in its relevant 

part, reads: 

"lb) Components of a wmununitv action procram 

may be administered by the community action agency, 

where consistent with sound and efficient management 

and applicable law, or bv other agencies. Do." 

Sub-section (c) of said Section 2790, in its relevant 

part, reads: 

-3316- 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 3 (M-689) 

"(c) For the plrpoae of this subchapter, a 

community may be a city, county, multicity, or 

multicounty unit... or a neighborhood or other area 

(irrespective of boundaries or political subdivisions) 

which provides a suitable organizational base and 

possesses the commonality of interest needed for a 

community action program. . ..- 

Sub-section (a) of Section 2791 of said Title 42 reads, 

in part: 

"La) Each community action agency which is+.. 

a combination of political subdivisions shall ad,- 

minister its program through a cumaunity action 

board..." 

and the requirements of this board are stated in the immediately 

following sub-section (b) of this Section 2791. 

The Bulletin on Organizing C-unities for Action under 

the 1967 Amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act, published 

by the Office of Economic Opportunity iFebruary 1968), at page 4 

states the overall purpose of community action agencies as being 

2, . ..established at the local or state level 

to prwide a focal point for anti-poverty efforts 

within a community or c-unities. *..(I 

The Bulletin then lists a number of goals and required activities 

of such agencies. 

While some of these activities are beyond the statutory 

powers of county commissioners courts, (Attorney General's 

Opinion No. H-264 (1968).), nevertheless, some of these activities 

are within the clear powers of commissioners courts. See Attorney 

General's Opinion Number M-605 (1970). and Articles 2351, 4436a-1, 

and 4447a, and other statutes cited in that Opinion. On the other 

hand, as to the plenary powers of home rule cities, 

-3317- 

. 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 4 (M-689) 

I 

.D. a home rule city may exercise any power 

not denied it by the constitution or the general 

statutes, 50 long as the power is incorporated in 

the city charter. sO0" 39 Tex.Jur.2d 642, Municipal Corporations, Sec. 312. 

We are aware that Article 695c. Section 6-A(a), deaignates the State Department of Public Welfare as the Stats Agency 

II .*a to cooperate with the Federal Government 

in the administration of the provisions of Title V 

of the 'Economic Opportunity Act of 1964' and of 

the provisions of such other applicable titles of 

the 'Economic Opportunity Act of 1964' as are nw 

provided or as may be added thereto from time to 

time in the event no other State Agency is by law 

designated to cooperate with the Federal Government 

in the administration of the prwiaiona of such. 

title or titles as may be added to said Act, ...Y. 

Our opinion is that this prwision contemplates that local governments or organlsations should administer Title II of the 

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which provides for community 

action agencies, and that the State Department of Public Welfare 

should render to them such cooperation and assistance as they 

might need. 

We interpret your first question to ask whether a Commissioners Court might collaborate with a city in the manner and 

to the extent that their joint endeavors would carry out && the 

activities and meet all the goals required of a community action 

agency. eommissione~courts are authorized to carry out some 

of the activities required of community action agencies: these 

courts are not authorized to carry out some of the other activities required of such agencies. Attorney General's Opinion M-264, 

supra, 

-3318- 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 5 (‘M-689) 

Our opinion is that a county, acting by its Commissioners 

Court, may collaborate under a joint sponsorship with a city to 

carry out the activities required by the Office of Economic Gpportunity of a community action agency, where the county's undertakings and obligations do not go further than to exercise those 

powers conferred upon it under the law. Otherwise stated, the 

county may perform those activities which the law authorizes it 

to perform, and the city might perform all other activities required of a community action agency which the county may not 

and does not perform. This joint undertaking would seem to 

qualify the two participants, the county and city, as a community 

action agency as that term is defined in Title 42, U. S. Code 

Annotated, Section 2790(a) supra, except for designation by the 

Director. 

Under Article 1Ollm any county and any incorporated 

city, town or village may voluntarily join themselves together 

as a Regional Planning Cononiasion or Council of Gwernments 

(Art. lOllm, Sec. 1 and 3) for any or all of the multiple and 

varied purposes authorized in that Article. The joint agreement 

between the political entities comprising the Comniasion or 

Council, 

II 

. . . may provide for the manner of cooperation, ~...~ 

and the means and methods of the operation of the 

Comrdssion. . D .I' (Sec. 5) e 

~.__ 

Section 4 of this Article prwidea. in parts, as follwan 

"Under this Act, a Regional Planning Commission shall be a political subdivision of this 

state, aOaN Attorney General's Opinion No. M-149 (1967). 

The Co5u5ission m a v contract with one or 

more of its member governments to wrform any 

service which that government could, by contract, 

have any private organization without governmental 

powers perform.." 

-3319- 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 6 

In Section 3 is prwided, 

(M-689) 

I, . . . But nothinq in the Act shall be construed to lrmit the powers of the participating 

qwernmental units as provided by existinq law. 

The participating governmental units, by appropriate mutual agreement, may establish a Regional 

Planning Commission for a region designated in such 

agreement, provided that such region shall consist 

of terrItcry under their respective jurisdictions, 

including extraterritorial jurisdiction, if any, 

but need not include all of the territory of the 

governmental units participating." (Emphasis added.) 

In Section i E is stated, 

"'Comprehensive Development Planning Process' 

means the process of (1) assessing the needs and 

resources of an area; (2) formulatinq goals, objectives, policies and standards to guide its longrange physical, economic, and human resource development.; and (3: preparing plans and programs 

theref or r __ a D ” LEmphasis added.) 

Section 2? in its relevant part, reads: 

"The purpose of this Act is to encourage and 

permit local units of government to join and cooperate 

with one another to immwe the health, safetv and 

general welfare of their citizens; . . . that communities, 

areas, and regions grow with adequate street, utility, 

health, educational, recreational, and other essential 

facilities: .-.-. (Emphasis added.) 

Section 6(a) of this Article 1Ollm reads: 

"A Regional Planning Commission is authorized 

to apply for, contract for, receive and expend for 

its purposes any funds or grants from any participating 

governmental unit or from the State of Texas, federal 

government0 or any other source." Attorney General's 

Opinion No. M-518 (1969). 

-3320- 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 7 (M-689) 

The prwisions of Article 1Ollm should be liberally 

construed pursuant to the rule stated in Board of Ina. Com'rs. 

v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co., 150 Tex. 258,239 S.W;Zd 803, 

809 (1951). as follows: 

II . . . A law introducing a new regulation-for 

the advancement of the public welfare or conducive 

to the public good is a remedial statute and should 

be liberally construed to effect its purpose. 50 

Amer.Jur., p. 420, sec. 395: 59 C.J., p. 1107, sec. 

657. . .." 

Accord: 82 C.J.S. 916, Statutes, Sec. 387. note 49, and 70 

C.J.S. 12, Paupers, Sec. 3-4. 

Cur opinion is that the Legislature, by this Article 

lOllm, materially enlarged the pwers and the scope of the pwers 

conferred upon Commissioners Courts in the respects covered by 

the Article, but within the limitation imposed by Article V, 

Section 18 of our Constitution which provides that such courts, 

II . . . shall exercise such pwers and jurisdiction 

Over all county business, as is conferred by this 

Constitution and the laws of the State, or as may 

be hereafter prescribed." (Emphasis added.) 

In construing this provision of the Constitution our Supreme 

Court has said: 

II 

. . . Where a right is conferred or obligation 

imposed on said court, it has implied authority 

to exercise a broad discretion to acccmplish the 

purposes intended. . ..* Anderson v. Wood, 137 

Tex. 201. 152 S.W.Zd 1084.1085 (1941). (Emphasis 

added.1 

Accord: Dodson v. Marshall, 118 S.W.Zd 621,623 (Tex.Civ.App. 

1938, error dism.). The term "county business" used in this 

provision of the Constitution should be given, 

-3321- 
., 

Honorable Henry Wade. page 8 (M-689) 

I . ..a broad and liberal construction so as not 

to defeat the real purpose that was intended to be 

accomplished..." Glenn v. Dallas County Bois D'Arc 

Island Levee Diet., 282 S.W. 339, 344 {Tex.Civ.App. 

1926, on motion for reh., rev. on other grounds, 288 

S.W. 165, Tex.Comm.App. 1926). 

The courts have so held: Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. 

MS, 135 Tex. 239, 140 S.W.Zd 1098 (1940); Morton v. Thomson, 

15 S.W.2d 1067, (Tex.Civ.App. 1929, no writ). 

The broad powers of the Legislature to delegate its 

legislative authority concerning matters of local interest in 

support __ of local self-government are given broad discussion and 

application in Trimmier v, Carlton. li6 Tex. 572, 296 S.W. 1070, 

1079-1082 j1927). 

In answer to your second question, and in the absence 

of a stipulation of the powers conferred under Article lOllm, 

it is our opinion that the Commissioners' Court can designate 

another agency to act as the Community Action Agency but only 

to the extent that the functions of the agency, as they pertain 

to the Commissioner's Court, are limited to those functions 

allowed to be performed by thca Court by the statutes and Constitution of Texas. It IS, however, well settled that the Commissioner'

Court is given broad discretion to accomplish the power granted to 

them. Rwan v. PiCkett, 237 S.W.Zd 734, (Tex.Civ.App. 1951, no writ) 

Anderson v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201, 152 S.W.Zd 1084; Dodson v. Marshall, 

118 S.W.Zd 621 (Tex.Civ.App. 1938 err.dism.1, and.that it is the 

duty of the Commissioner88 Court to promote the general welfare 

of the whole of the county. Stwall v. Shivers, 129 Tex. 256, 

103 S.W.Zd 363 (1937). 

Attorney General's Opinion Number M-605 (1970) as well 

as authorities cited therein, express the legal concept that our 

law is a changing thing that must grw and adjust to current conditions. Associated Indemnity Corn,. v. Oil Well Drillinq Co., 

258 S.W.2d 523,529 (Tex.Civ.App. 1953, affirmed, Tex.Sup. 264 

S.W.Zd 697 (1954). By virtue of its duties and responsibilities, 

-3322- 
c 

Honorable Henry Wade, page 9 (M-689) 

the Commissioner's Court has the implied power to designate an 

agent or agency to act as the Community Action Agency, prwided 

that such agent or agency does not usurp the non-delegable duties 

of the Commissioner's Court in exercising judgment and discretion 

and deciding overall policies and plans and confines its activities to the carrying out of theae decisions and exercising 

only ministerial functions. Hill v. Sterrett, 252 S.W.2d 766 

(Tex.Civ.App. 1952, error ref. n.r.e.) at page 770; Gano v. Palo 

Pinto County, 71 Tex. 99, 8 S.W. 634 (1888): Pritchard & Abbott 

v. McKenna, 162 Tex. 617, 350 S.W.2d 333 (1961). It is generally 

held that a county board considered as a governmental agency has 

implied power to employ agents and servants. 20 C.J.S. 896, 

Counties, Section 101(l), page 1014, section 180. 15 Tex.Jur.Zd 

321, Counties, Section 94, and cases there cited. 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioner's Court has the authority 

to act on a joint basis with a home-rule city in 

the establishment of a community action agency, and 

in this connection, the Commissioner's Court may designate another agent or agency to serve as the Community Action Agency on this joint basis with the 

city: so long as the non-delegable duties of the 

Commissioner's Court regarding decision making and 

exercise of judgment and discretion are not permitted 

to be usurped by such agency, but limited only to the 

exercise of ministerial functionrr. 

Attorr&y General of Texas 

Prepared by Melvin E. Corley 

Assistant Attorney General 

-3323- 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 10 (M-689) 

APPROVED: 

OPINIa CCMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

Gilbert Pens 

Ralph Rash 

Lehman Marks 

E. L. Hamilton 

ME?DE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

,’ 

t 

-3324-