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”). A juvenile 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 for juvenile 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 the juvenile 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 court judge, each 

‘Juvenile pmbation services SIX “servi~ provided by or under the dir&ion of B juvenile probation officer in 

rcspome to an order issued by a juvenile court and under the court’s dkction[,J” or services provided by a juvenile 

probation dqmimeat ia relation to the operation of a juvenile 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 (Texas prscticc 1989). 

‘Id. 5 24.4. 

‘Otlm statutes applicable to he board include the general pmvisiom in subctmpbx A of chapter 152. See Hum 

Res. Code. 55 152.0001, X131 (stating application of subciqter A and B of chapter 152), .0051- .0055 (subchapter 

(continued...) 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 2 (DM-460) 

juvenile court judge, 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 of juvenile probation 

personnel and other expenses certified as necessary by the juvenile 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, limited to cmmtics with tidy district court), .0071- .2571 (subchapter D, prwisions applicable to specific counties). 

Additionally, chapbx 142 of the Human Resources Code includes provisions generally applicable to a juvenile board 

and juvenile probation dqwbnmt as does chapta 141, dealing with the Texas hwenik Probation Ckmdssion and the 

stabxvide adminis&ation and coordination of juvenile 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 health professional, and a representative of 

theeducaIimcommum ‘ty. See Hum. Res. Code 5 152.0010(a). 

‘But see id. 5 141.067 (juvenile probation officer whose jurisdiction covc~s only one. county considered county 

Cmpl~Ycc). 

The Texas Juvenile Probation Co mmission is required to alkate annually state funds for tinancial assistance 

to juvenile boards to provide juvenile 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 LAW 9 (Special Legislative Issue 1995) 

(commissioners court has limited revjew and must approve budgel unless it can show abuse of disction, citing 

(continued..) 

p. 2573 
The 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 General Opinion MW-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 commissi mm may review for abuse of discretion); see alro Attorney G.mere.1 

Option MW-587 (1982) (commissmners ’ comt must budget and approve salaries set by juvenile board); infro note 11. 

“Section 152.0012 of the Human Resources Code enacted in 1995, provides the following: 

The juvenile board &II pqare a budget for the juvenile probation department and 

the other facilities and programs under the jurisdiction of the juvenile board The 

wnrmirsionwCQUltshalltCViCWdC4ltlEidCId~the amount of county till& derived 

from county taxes, fees, and other county sources in the budget. The commissioners 

court may not review any patt of the budget derived tirn state funds. 

By the terms of the stamte, eommissi oncrs cant’s review is resakted to the part of the budget derived from county 

lida. With respxt to that parf Repmentative Goodmq author of the legislation, has stated that the purpose was to 

alhwthe commissioners court to review the budget in order to adequately prepare for the level of county timding that 

wiII be. nccess~~y; it was not 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 

111.094 adopted by the house and senate, explained the legislation as follows: 

p#xbing in this bill points out. . how those courts buvenile courts] or how the juvenile 

board is to operate. Nothing. It’s only B dollar amount that goes to them. Everything 

eb-everything else is set-everythiq else is set by the juvenile b&d. 

. 

Well, they [the juvenile boards] still have 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. 

Debate on S.B. 1395 on the Floor of the Senate, 75th Leg. (June 1.1997) (tape available from Senate Staff Services). 

P. 2574 
The 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,15 provided 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, 1981 Tex. Gen. Laws 2419, 2419 (amending 

predecessor to chapter 141 of the Human Rcsom Code to make. probation services available throughout the state for 

juvadles). 

p. 2575 
The 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 may justify 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 that the Gdvestoa County Beach Park Board, in its “county creation, composition, 

and cxmcem solely with [county] problems” had numerous chamctcristics of a county entity and was therefore subject 

to cmtain stamtcs govcndng unmIies. Loher, 841 S.W.2d at 365. l’be court reached this conclusion based on a numba 

of statutory factors: the beach park board was created at the initiation of 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 commissioners court 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 subject to the imp&ion of the commissioners 

court Id. at 363-65. Additionally, the county beach park board of trustee’s budget was funded largely by the county 

and the county commissioners court approved the board’s annual budget, hiring and promotions. Id. 

‘Your question suggests that county liability may result from merely the use of county funds for the payment 

ofacontmctorappmvaloftlxamtractbythe wmmissionexs court. We tind no basis for imposition of such liability. 

p. 2576 
The 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?” 

A juvenile 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.n accordance 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 a juvenile 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 for juvenile 

probation services); id p 152.0011 (contraas with private vendor for the timming, construction, opetation, 

maintcnancc, or management of youth boot camp snd with other juvenile boards or depsrtments to jointly establish 

rcgioml boot camps). 

PIfOx depahunt were a part of the 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 (Texss Pm&e 1989) ( county commissioners court only body *utborkd 

63 execute cxn1tract9 bii cm county udess statute specifiicaly provides odmwise). 

‘2Your request letter refers to section 37.001. We assume, however, dut you intended to reference section 

37.011 of the Education Code since(i) your letter brief discums that section and (ii) section 37.001 Requiem 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 “student code of conduct.” 

%ee id. (conchrding that a juvenile board is authmized to provide educational sewices to students not mquired 

to attend juvenile justice alternative education program by juvenile court order). 

p. 2577 
The Honorable JosC R. 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 for juveniles’ 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 a juvenile 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. 2578 
The 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 has jurisdiction the funds the entity receives. The 

county shall hold, deposit, dtiburse, invest, and otherwise carefor the funa5 

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 the juvenile 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) (abolishing office of county tteswer in certain cmntiea subject 

to voter approval and providing for transfer of duties to other county offker or persons). 

p. 2579 
The 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 the juvenile 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, a juvenile 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 approve juvenile 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 140.003 explained the legislative iatent as follows: 

[Tlhe bill provides some tightening of the accounting and handling of certain 

spcdizd funds that exist in our counties. The dishict attorney’s tim& tie juvmile board, 

probation dcpartmnt--these people aU have fee incomes that go into funds, and they are. not 

xquid under aristing law to empty with the comp&iv~bidding statutes, to comply with 

the same~kind of accountability that is applied to the county treasury and the county 

commissioners. And this simplypLzces some accounting andpurchasing reqm.sibilitiea to 

get a little bit of acwuntabil@ into those publicJim& 

Attorney General Opiicm DM-247 (1993) (citing Hearings on C.S.H.B. 1434 Before die Senate 

htergovcmmcntal R.&has Cam., 71st Leg. (May 25,1989)) (empbzsis added) (statement of Senator 

Parmer) (transcript available from Senate StaEScrvices Office). 

3%~ do we believe that such pa interpretation is supported by Attorney General Opinions DM-247 and DM257. Both of t&e opinions dealt with county accounting ~IUCC&R applicable to disbursemen toffundsde 

posibxt in the county tnmury. Neither considered whether any disbursements required county commissioners court’s 

review or approval of disbtusemen 6. In Attorney General Opinion DM-247, this office determined that sxtion 59.06 

oftbeCa&ofCrimimlRocedure grmtd spending authority and dketion to law enforcemen t agencies over 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 warrants be countemigned by the county auditor, 

that all payments be approved by tbe county auditor, and that the “county. disburse. . .tbe fun& on behalf of tbe 

(continued..) 

p. 2580 
The 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. However the auditor’s record-keeping xe-qhmmb did not conflict with article 59.06(d) ml, therefore, 

applied to the forfeited funds. Id. at 7-8. In Attorney General Opiian DM-257, this office concluded that Local 

Government Code. section 140.003(f) incorporated the county auditor’s budgetary oversight of the warrant process 

and prohibition on payment of checks or warrants not countersigned by the county auditor. Attorney General Opinion 

DM-257 (1993) at 5. 

we assume the OffIce of the county bnasurer in EI Paw County has been abolished and the commissioners 

court has designad the. county auditor to perform the county 4reasurer.s functions. See Tex. Cons~ art. XVI, Q 44(d) 

(sbolishing office of county treasurer in El Paso county if approved by voters and providing that commissioners court 

may designate mother county officer to perform county txasuer fatiom). 

“Giveo our conclusion, we do not address your fifth question “if [the] Cmnmissioners Court~s] approval is 

required to autlroti expcadtture of state or county funds, may the C!onAssioaers Court pre-approve payment for 

specitically defmed claims within a set dollar hit’?’ 

p. 2581 
The 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 of juvenile 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