DAN MORALES

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

### QBffice of tfy ~ttornep Qiknerst Mate of IEexae

December 17,1997
The Honorable Jose R Rodriguez El Paso County Attorney county courthouse 500 E. San Antonio, Room 203 El Paso, Texas 79901 Opinion No. DM-460 Re: Authority of the El Paso County Juvenile Probation Board to enter into contracts or authorize expenditures without the commissioners court’s approval (RQ-939)
Dear Mr. Rodrfguez: You ask several questions relating to the authority of the El Paso County Juvenile Probation Board (the “board”) to enter into contracts or authorize expenditures for the El Paso Juvenile Department (the “department”) without approvsJ of the Commissioners Court (the “commissioners court”) of El Paso County (the “county”). Ajuvenile board is generally responsible for providing juvenile probation services’ in one or more counties and employing juvenile probation officers and persome to provide these services.2 The composition and powers of any pat$icular juvenile board are determmed by the general statute providing forjuvenile boards in all counties and by any special statute applicable to that c0~ty.r Juvenile probation departments are established and operated under the auspices of thejuvenile board in conjunction with the rules and regulations adopted by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (the “commission”)! Before turning to your specilic questions, we look at the statutespumuant to which the board and the department were created and operate. The board was created by section 152.0771 of the Human Resources Code: and is composed of the county judge, each family district courtjudge, each

‘Juvenile pmbation servicesSIX

“servi~ providedby or under the dir&ion of B juvenile probation officer in rcspome to an order issuedby ajuvenile court and under the court’ s dkction[,J” or servicesprovided by ajuvenile probation dqmimeat ia relation to the operation of ajuvenile detention facility. Hum Res. code g 142.001.

Se Hura Res. Code p 152.ooO7; 36 D~vm B. **BROOKS, CDUN-W** 

**AND SPECML**  DISTRICT LAW 3 24.3 (Texas Practice 1989).

‘36 DAVID

B. BROOKS,

**COUNTY**

**AND SPECUL**  DISTRICT LAW Q 24.3 (Texasprscticc 1989).

‘Id. 5 24.4.

‘Otlm statutesapplicable

to he boardincludethe generalpmvisiom in subctmpbx A ofchapter 152. SeeHum Res. Code.55 152.0001,X131 (stating applicationof subciqter A and B of chapter 152), .0051- .0055 (subchapter (continued...)The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 2 (DM-460)

juvenile courtjudge, and up to five judges on the El Paso Council of Judges6 elected by a majority vote of the council. The board is charged with providing juvenile probation services in the county in response to orders issued by and under the direction of the juvenile court. Hum. Res. Code $3 142.001,152.0007(a). Commission rules and regulations govem the board’s minimum standards for personnel, stafting, programs, record keeping, and other aspects of the board’s operations necessary to provide juvenile probation services. Id. $5 141.042,152.0007. The board hires department personnel, including the chief probation officer and any assistants. Id. 5s 142.002, 152.0007(a). The board sets department employee salaries. Id. 142.002(b); Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982) (construing predecessor to section 142.002(b) to allow juvenile board to set salaries subject to commissioners court’s review only for abuse of discretion). The commissioners court is required to pay the salaries ofjuvenile probation personnel and other expenses certified as necessary by thejuvenile board chairman. Hum. Res. Code 9 152.0004; Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982); but see Act of June 1, 1997,75th Leg., RS., ch 1197,s 9,1997 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4611,4613 (codified at Local Gov’t Code 9 111.094). Juvenile probation personnel are considered state employees and not county employees for the purposes of governmental liability under chapter 104 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Hum. Res. Code $142.004(b).r Thedepartment is fimdedwithbothcountyand state funds.8 Id. @ 141.081, .084,152.0904, .0005, .0012; see Local Gov’t Code 5 111.094. Although the board is required to submit the department’s budget to the commissioners court,9 the latter’s authority overthe budget is limited. Hum. Res. Code $9 142.002, 152.0007, .0012; ‘” Local Gov’t Code 4 111.094. A commissioners

C,limitedto cmmticswithtidy districtcourt), .0071- .2571(subchapter D,prwisions applicable

to specificcounties). Additionally,chapbx 142ofthe Human ResourcesCode includes provisions generally applicableto ajuvenile board andjuvenileprobationdqwbnmt asdoes chapta 141,dealingwiththe Texashwenik ProbationCkmdssion and the stabxvide adminis&ationand coordination ofjuvenile probation sexvices. %ch juvenile.board is required to appoint an advisq council composed of not more than nine citizens, including a prosecuting attorney, a mental he&b professional, a medical healthprofessional, and a representative of theeducaIimcommum ‘ty. See Hum. Res. Code 5 152.0010(a).

‘Butsee id. 5 141.067

(juvenileprobationofficerwhose jurisdictioncovc~s

only one. county consideredcounty Cmpl~Ycc). The TexasJuvenileProbationCo mmissionisrequiredto alkate annuallystatefunds for tinancial assistance to juvenile boards to providejuvenile probation services. Id. 5 141.081. ‘Ihe commission grants the “state aid” to juvenile boards that comply with the co mm&ion’ s standards for aid Id. $5 141.082,.084. %ee Local Gov’t Code 8 140.004; Hum Res. Code 5 152.0012.
**loSee STATE** **BAR OF**  **TEXAS, SECTION**  **REPORT,** JUVENILE

LAW9 (Special Legislative Issue 1995) (commissioners court has limited revjew and must approve **budgel unless**  it can show abuse of disction, citing (continued..)
p. 2573The Honorable JosC R Rodriguez - Page 3 (DM-460)

court has no authority to consider or review the portion of the department budget funded with state limds. Hum. Res. Code 5 152.0012. ” With respect to the items tkded by the county, the commissioners court’s authority has been limited to approving and funding the budget unless the commissioners court can show that the board has abused its discretion. Id. ‘* But under recent legislation, the county determines the “amount of county funds to be spent for the juvenile department in the county budget.” See Local Gov’t Code 9 111.094. Under this provision, however, the county may only determine the total dollar amount of county funds allocated to the department.”

“(...contbmed) Attomcy GeneralOpinionMW-587(1982)); ROBERT 0. DAWSON,

TEX. JUVENILE PROBATION

**COMM'N,**

**AN ANALYSIS**  OF Jwpme STATUTORY

AND CASE LAW PORTF.XA.Y

JWENILE JUSTICE OFFICU (Texas Juvenile Law 4th ed, 1996) (juvde board stabties budget and commissimm may review for abuse of discretion);see alro Attorney G.mere.1 Option MW-587(1982)(commiss’ mnerscomt mustbudget and approvesalariesset byjuvenile board); infro note 11. “Section 152.0012of the Human ResourcesCode enacted in 1995,provides the following: Thejuvenile board &II pqare abudgetforthe juvenile probationdepartmentand the other facilities and programs under the jurisdiction of thejuvenile board The wnrmirsionwCQUltshalltCViCWdC4ltlEidCId~the amount ofcounty till& derived from county taxes, fees, and other county sources in the budget. The commissioners court may not review any patt ofthe budget derived tirn state funds. By the terms ofthe stamte, eommissioncrs cant’ s review is resakted to the part of the budget derived from county lida. Withrespxt to that parf Repmentative Goodmq author of the legislation,has statedthat the purpose was to alhwthe commissionerscourt to reviewthe budget in order to adequatelyprepare for the level of county timding that wiIIbe. nccess~~y;

it wasnot to give veto power over the budget. Debate on H.B. 327 on the Floor of the House, 74th Leg., RS. (l&y 25,1995) (kmscript available. from House Video/Audio Sexvkes Office).

Se Act of June 1,1997,75th Leg., RS., ch. 1197.5 9,1997 Tex. Sess. Law Serv.4611,4613 (ccdified at Local Guv’t Code p 111.094). Senator Jon Lindsay, who pmposed the umference committee language of section 111.094adopted by the house and senate, explainedthe legislation as follows:

p#xbing in this bill points out.
. how those courts buvenile courts] or how thejuvenile board is to operate. Nothing. It’ s only Bdollar amount that goes to them. Everything eb-everything else is set-everythiq else is setby thejuvenile b&d.

. Well,they [thejuvenile boards] stillhave authority to do-to set the line items within their budget all the way. We have-and that’ s local money, state money, and any federal grants they might get. Debateon S.B. 1395on the Floor of the Senate, 75th Leg. (June 1.1997) (tape availablefrom Senate Staff Services).

P. 2574The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 4 (~~-460)

It may not determine the particular purposes or amounts of any expenditures t?om these or any other finds the department receives.r4 The department is a “specialized local entity” under section 140.003 of the Local Government Code, that is required to deposit funds it receives in the county treasury, Local Gov’t Code $ 140.003(a), (f), and is also subject to the purchasing requirements applicable to the county under subchapter C of chapter 262 of the Local Government Code, id. 5 140.003(b). Finally, the board is expressly authorized to contract with the Texas Youth Commission for juvenile probation services, Hum. Res. Code 4 142.003(b), and to provide services to persons who violate parole, id. $9 141.0432(d), (e), 142.003(b). The board or the department is additionally authorized to wntract with a private vendor for the tinancing, wnstruction, operation, maintenance, or management of a youth boot camp, and may also contract with other local juvenile boards and departments to establish joint regional boot camps. Id. $ 152.0011. We start by addressing your third question since it requires us to examine the relevant statutory timnework in its entirety. You ask if ‘tie County is generally liable for contracts entered into by the Juvenile Probation Department or is such liability limited to the fimds received by the juvenile probation department as a specialized local entity?’ You do not indicate in your letter the particular type or subject of the contract at issue. Therefore, our answer to your question must necessarily be general in scope. No provision conclusively indicates whether the department is a separate and autonomous entity or a part of the county. Consequently, we examine the characteristics of the department to make this determination. As stated by the Texas Supreme Court, “[clommon sense dictates that important wnsiderations in determining the nature [of an entity], include, among other things, sources of fimding, accountability and supervision.” Ldtec v. Galveston Count Comm ‘rs Court, 841 S.W.2d 361,363 (Tex. 1992). The department at issue is established by the board. See Hum. Res. Code 5 152.0007(a). The purpose of the department, the provision of juvenile probation services, is not merely a county concern, but a state-wide one,15provided in response to and under the direction of juvenile court orders and governed by state regulations. See id. $5 142.001, 141.042, 152.0007. The wmmissioners wurt has no authority with respect to the creation and composition of the board since the board is a statutorily created entity comprised of the members designated by the statute. See id. $ 152.0771. The board bires department personnel and sets their salaries, without commissioners court supervision. Id. $5 142.002(b), 152.0007(a). Department employees are considered state

‘3ee Act of May 30, 1981, 67th Leg., RS., ch. 617, $ 1, 1981Tex. Gen. Laws 2419, 2419 (amending predecessorto chapter 141ofthe HumanRcsom Codeto make. probationservicesavailablethroughout the state for juvadles).

p. 2575The Honorable Jose R Rodriguez - Page 5 (DM-460)

employe# for the purposes of state liability and indemnification for acts of negligence and criminal pmsecution. Id. 6 142.002(b). Although the department’s budget comprises county timds as well asstateftmds,thewnmissi oners wurt has limited control over even the wunty funded portion. Id. §§ 142.002(b), 152.0004, 152.0012; see ah supra note 13. The board or the department is specifically empowered, without any express provision for wunty oversight, to enter into certain wntracts. Id. 85 141.0432(d), (e), 142.003(b), 152.0011. All of these factors indicate that the department is an entity independent of the county. We note that the department is made subject to some county supervision in the deposit and disbursement of department timds. See Local Gov’t Code 9 140.003. We do not believe this requirement indicates that the department is part of the county but, in fact, indicates that the department is distinct t?om the county. If the department was merely a part of the county, there would be no need to require the deposit of department funds in the county treasury and disbursement by the county. Similarly, the fact that the department is made subject to tbe county purchasing requirements also supports the distinction between the county and the department. Therefore, it is our view that the department is an entity separate and distinct from the c~unty.~~ Thus, any contract entered into by the department would be binding only on the depattment. Accordingly, a contract entered into by the department would not, as a general matter, impose any liability on the county. I8 We cannot and do not address whether the circumstances involved in a particular contract entered into by the department mayjustify the imposition of liability on the wunty. We turn now to your first question. You ask if “the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department, acting through the El Paso Juvenile Probation Board, may validly enter into wntracts independent of [the] Commissioners Comt[‘s] approval?” Again you do not indicate in your letter the particular type or circumstances of the contract at issue. Therefore, our answer to your question must newssarily be general in scope.

‘%lIt see slqra note 7. ?&npwe L&x hokhg thatthe Gdvestoa County Beach Park Board, in its “county creation, composition, and cxmcem

solelywith [county]problems”had numerous chamctcristicsof a county entity and was therefore subject to cmtain stamtcs govcndng unmIies. Loher, 841 S.W.2dat 365. l’be courtreachedthisconclusionbased on a numba of statutory factors: the beach park board was created at the initiationof the commissioners court for the purposes of maintaining and operating county park, membzs of the county beach park board, including one member of the commissionerscomt,areappointcdbythe commissionerscourt and any vacancy is filled by the commissioners court; members are squired to file a bond with the county clerk payable to the county and approved by the commissioners comq a county beach park board can use the services of the county attorney; county beach board timds are deposited md?3ecmedinthesam manaeres~fimd9;acoutltybeachparkboardmaycontractwiththecountytokeepand maintain its records, and, records of the county beach park board are subjectto the imp&ion of the commissioners court Id. at 363-65. Additionally, the county beach park board oftrustee’ sbudget was funded largely by the county and the county commissioners court approved the board’ s annualbudget, hiring and promotions. Id.

‘Your question suggeststhat countyliabilitymay resultfrom merely the use of county funds for the payment ofacontmctorappmvaloftlxamtractbythe wmmissionexscourt. We tind no basis for imposition of such liability.

p. 2576The Honorable Jose R Rodriguez - Page 6 (DM-460)

As noted in our discussion above, no provision expressly subjects board or department w&acts to wmmissionets wurt’s approval. There am on the other hat@ as you point auf express provisions authorizing the board or the department to wntract for particular purposes that do not reference wmmissioners court’s approval. I9 It is our view that if the legislature had intended that the wmmissionets wurt’s appmval be obtained in other circumstances, the legislature would have so pmvided. Furthermore, we see no basis for implying such an approval requirement since, in our view, the department is not a part of the county. ” We conclude that as a general rule and in the absence of a statute to the wntrary, the board may enter into wntracts2’ without wmmissionets court’s approval. We cannot and do not, of course, address whether the subject or circumstances of a particular contract may require that the commissioners court’s approval be obtained. You next question if “the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department, acting through the El Paso Juvenile Probation Board, may validly enter into contracts with school districts to provide juvenile justice altemative education programs as rewired by Texas. Educ. Code Ann. 5 37.0[1 112* (Vernon Supp. 19%), independent of [the] Commissioners Court[‘s] appmval?” Ajuvenile board in a county with population in excess of 125,000 is required to develop a juvenile justice alternative program (JJAEP)p see Educ. Code $5 37.011 - .013, and to provide educational services to certain students,” see id. $37.01 l(b). J.naccordance with this mandate, a juvenile board may provide the JJAEP in facilities owned by the school district and “[a] school district may pmvidepetsonnel and services for ajuvenile justice ahernative education program under a contract with the juvenile board.” Id. $37.01 l(e) (emphasis added). Neither section 37.01 l(e) nor another provision requires that the wmmissioners court approve a wntract under this section. You inform us that the population of the county exceeds 125,000. Thus, the board is required to

%ee Hum.Rcs.Code $0 141,0432(d),(e),142.003(b) (contraas with Tems Youth Commission forjuvenile probation services); id p 152.0011 (contraas with private vendor for the timming, construction, opetation, maintcnancc, or management of youth boot camp snd with otherjuvenile boards or depsrtments tojointly establish rcgioml boot camps). PIfOx depahunt were apart ofthe county, tbe commissioners court would, of course, have to approve and execute depmmmt comscts. See Anderson v. F’omf, 152 S.W.Zd 1084,1085 (Tex. 1941);35 DAVID B. BROOKS, COUNTY AND SPECLU DISTRKT LAW 8 5.13(TexssPm&e 1989)(countycommissionerscourt only body *utborkd 63execute cxn1tract9

bii cmcounty udess statute specifiicalyprovides odmwise).

‘2Yourrequest letter refers to section 37.001. We assume, however, dut you intended to reference section 37.011ofthe EducationCode since(i) yourletterbriefdiscums that sectionand (ii) section37.001Requiem each school did&t, and “jointly ss appropriate,”with tie juvenile board of each county in which the school district is lowted, to adopt a “studentcode of conduct.”

%ee id. (conchrding

thatajuvenileboardis authmizedtoprovide educationalsewices to studentsnot mquired to attendjuvenilejustice alternativeeducationprogram byjuvenile court order).

p. 2577The Honorable JosCR. Rodriguez - Page 7 (DM-460)

develop a JJABP progrsm and may enter into contracts with a school district under section 37.01 l(e) of the Education Code. We note, however, that it is the board, not the department, that is authorized to enter into a contract with a school district under section 37.011. Accordingly we conclude that the board may enter into contracts with school districts as permitted by section 37.011 of the Education Code without the approval of the commissioners court. You ask in your fourth question whether “the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department, acting through the El Paso Juvenile Probation Board, may validly authorize the County Auditor to expend state or county funds independent of review and approval by the Commissioners Court?” You provide the following background information with respect to this question: The department is responsible forjuveniles’ post-adjudication placement and associated travel costs as ordered by the juvenile court. The department pays for the placement and travel costs &om a variety of funds, including state and county fin&. Timely transportation of ajuvenile from the detention facility to a Texas Youth Commission facility is desirable for various reasons.25 Under “normal” procedures, a request for payment for the transportation costs would be submitted to the county auditor who in turn would place the request as an item on the commissioners court’s agenda for approval pursuant to L.ocal Govemment Code section 115.021. This is problematic because there is a delay of one or two weeks from the date of the juvenile court placement order to the,date the request for payment can be considered by the commissioners court. You ti, in your letter that it has been suggested that commissioners court’s approval is not required because. the board as a “specialized local entity” under section 140.003 of the Local Govemment Code is authorized to direct payment f?om either the state or county funded portion of ita budget, and the auditor may issue such paymenta without additional approval by the commissioners courLz6 We agree. Section 140.003 provides in part: (a) In this section, “specialized local entity” moans: (1) a district or criminal district attorney; (2) a juvenile board, juvenile probation office, or juvenile department established for one or more counties; or

p. 2578The Honorable Jose R Rodriguez - Page 8 (DM-460)

(3) an adult probation office or department established for a judicial district. (b) A special&d local entity shall purchase items in accordance with the same procedures and subject to the same requirements applicable to a county under Subchapter C, Chapter 262. For the purposes of this section, a specialized local entity is treated as if it were a county. A specialized local entity may make a contract with a county under which the county performs purchasing functions for the entity.

. . . . (r) Each specialized local entity shall deposit in the county treasury of the county in which the entity hasjurisdiction the funds the entity receives. The county shall hold, deposit, dtiburse, invest, and otherwise carefor thefuna5 on behalf of the specialized local entiiy as the entity directs. (g) The wunty auditor, if any, of the county that msnagea a specialized local entity’s funds has the same authority to audit the funds of the entity that the auditor has with regard to county funds. Local Gov’t Code $140.003 (footnote deleted) (emphasis added). Under section 140.003, ajuvenile board or department, as a specialized local entity, must deposit funds it receives in the county treasmy, which means depositing with the county treasurer or other county officd’ for placement in the county depository. Attorney General Opinion DM-257 (1993) at 4. But subsection (t) also states that the “county shall

. . . disburse.

. the funds.

. . as the entity dire&.” If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must give the statute its common everyday meaning. Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 80 (Tex. 1997). The statute’s ordinary meaning allows thejuvenile board or department to direct expenditure of the tumls at issue. We next look at who must act to disburse the deposited funds in response to the juvenile board’s or department’s dire&ion. Subsection(f) states that the county shall disburse the funds. The term “wunty” as used in this context can reasonably refer only to the county treasurer or other county officer in charge of disbursing wunty funds. See Local Gov’t Code $4 113.001- X103, .041 (designating county treasurer chief custodian of and requiring such officer to disburse all county funds); Agan, 940 S.W.2d at 80, 82 (legislature has given county treasurer exclusive power to disburse county funds). Accordingly, the juvenile board or department may dir& the county treasurer or an appropriate county officer to disburse its funds.

%ee Tex. Cmst at XVI, 0 44(b),(c) and (d) (abolishingoffice ofcounty tteswer in certaincmntiea subject to voter approval and providing for transfer of duties to other county offker or persons).

p. 2579The Honorable Jose R Rodriguez - Page 9 (DM-460)

No provision in Local Government Code section 140.003 expressly requires the wmmissionets wurt to review or approve expenditure of thejuvenile board or department fbnds on deposit in the wunty treasury. Nor is there any basis for implying such a requirement. ‘lhe legislative history of section 140.003 indicates that the legislature intended local entities, includmg the juvenile board or department, to be accountable for their funds in the same mamter as county wmmissioners wurts sre for wunty fiu~ds.~ Acwniingly, ajuvenile board or department under the statute must comply with the competitive bidding procedures and other requirements of subchapter C of chapter 262 of the Local Government Code applicable to a county, see Local Gov’t Code $140.003(b); and must deposit its timds in the county tressury, id. $140.003(f). Lastly, the board or department tknds are subject to audit by the wunty auditor to the same extent wunty funds are, id. 4 140.003(g). Consequently, such local entities were placed in the same position as, not made accountable to, the commissioners court for expenditure of funds. We next examine section 115.021 of the Local Government Code to determine if the commissioners court must approvejuvenile board or depsrtment expenditures. This section provides as follows: “The wmmissionem wutt of a county shall audit and settle all acwunts against the county and shah direot the payment of those acwunts.” By its terms, this section does not apply to the board’s payment requests since they do not relate to “accounts against the wunty.” You suggest, however, that section 115.021 is nevertheless applicable to juvenile board or department expenditures by incorporation in section 140.003(f). Based on our discussion of subsection (f) above, we find no support for such an interpretation in either the language or legislative history of the statute.”

The senate sponsor of the bill enacting section 140.003explainedthe legislative iatent as follows: [Tlhe bill provides some tightening of the accounting and handling of certain spcdizd fundsthat existin our counties. The dishict attorney’ s tim& tie juvmile board, probationdcpartmnt--these peopleaU have fee incomesthatgo into funds, and they are. not xquid under aristing lawto empty withthe comp&iv~bidding statutes,to comply with the same~kind of accountability that is applied to the county treasury and the county commissioners.

AndthissimplypLzces

someaccounting

andpurchasingreqm.sibilitiea to get a littlebit of

acwuntabil@

intothose publicJim& Attorney General Opiicm DM-247 (1993) (citing Hearings on C.S.H.B. 1434 Before die Senate htergovcmmcntal R.&has Cam., 71stLeg. (May 25,1989)) (empbzsis added) (statement of Senator Parmer) (transcript availablefrom Senate StaEScrvices Office). 3%~ do webelieve that suchpa interpretation is supported by Attorney General Opinions DM-247and DM257. Both of t&e opinions dealt with county accounting ~IUCC&Rapplicable to disbursementoffundsde posibxtin the county tnmury. Neitherconsideredwhether any disbursementsrequired county commissioners court’ s review or approvalofdisbtusemen 6. In AttorneyGeneralOpinion DM-247,this office determined that sxtion 59.06 oftbeCa&ofCrimimlRocedure grmtd spendingauthorityand dketion to lawenforcemen t agenciesover forfeted fuuds deposited in the county treasmy. Thus, such agencies were not subject 5 the confkting requiremen@that disbursements be made by the county trcawer, that all checks and warrantsbe countemigned by the county auditor, that allpayments be approved by tbe county auditor, and that the “county. disburse.

. .tbe fun& on behalf of tbe (continued..)

p. 2580The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 10 (DM-460)

We also believe a requirement that the wmmissioners court review and approve juvenile board or department expenditums is wntrary to the board’s budgetary and financial independence. As stated previously, section 152.0012 expressly precludes the wmmissionets wurt tiom any review or consideration of a board’s budget derived from state funds. Furthermore, the wunty commissioners’ authority even over the portion of the board’s budget derived from county funds is limited to approving the budget unless the wmmissioners court can show that the board has abused its discretion and to determining the total dollar amount allocated to the department. See supra discussion at 4-5. We have also seen that the board does not require commissioners wurt’s approval to execute wntracts and, thereby, incur liabilities. See supra discussion at 9-10. If a board’s budget and its ability to incur liability is not subject to wmmissionets wurt’s review and approval, it would be inwnsistent to require disbursements to pay the board’s claims to such review and approval. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the board, on behalf of the department, may authorize the county audito3o to expend state or county funds independent of the commissioners wurt’s review and approvaL3’

specialized local mtity[,l” under Lncal Goverrment Code section 140.003(f). Attorney General Opinibn DM-247 (1993)at 5.6. Howeverthe auditor’ srecord-keepingxe-qhmmb did not conflictwith article 59.06(d)ml, therefore, applied to the forfeited funds. Id. at 7-8. InAttorney GeneralOpiian DM-257,this office concluded that Local Government Code.section 140.003(f)incorporated the county auditor’ s budgetary oversight of the warrant process andprohibitionon paymentof checksorwarrantsnot countersignedby the county auditor. Attorney General Opinion DM-257(1993) at 5.

we assume the OffIce

of the county bnasurer in EIPaw County has been abolished and the commissioners courthas designad the.

county auditorto perform the county 4reasurer.s functions. See Tex. Cons~ art. XVI, Q44(d) (sbolishingofficeof county treasurerin El Pasocounty if approved by voters andproviding that commissioners court may designate mother county officer to perform county txasuer fatiom). “Giveo our conclusion, we do not addressyour fifth question “if [the]Cmnmissioners Court~s] approval is required to autlroti expcadtture of stateor countyfunds,maythe C!onAssioaers Courtpre-approve

paymentfor specitically defmed claims within a set dollar hit’ ?’

p. 2581The Honorable Jose R Rodriguez - Page 11 W-460)

SUMMARY The El Paso County Juvenile Department is an entity separate and distinct t?om the County of El Paso. Thus, any contract entered into by the El Paso County Juvenile Probation Board on behalf of the department would not, as a general matter, impose any liability on the wunty. As a general rule and in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the board may enter into authorized wntracts without the approval of the wunty commissioners court. The board may enter into w&acts with school districts for provision ofjuvenile justice alternative education programs as permitted by section 37.011(e) of the Education Code without the county commissioners wurt’s approval. The board may authorize expenditure of state aid and county funds independent of the commissioners court’s review and approval.

DAN MORALES Attorney General of Texas JORGE VEGA First Assistant Attorney General SARAH J. SHLRLEY Chair, Opinion Committee Prepared by Sheela Rai Assistant Attorney General

p. 2582