November 3, 1976 

The Honorable M. L. Brockette 

Commissioner 

Texas Education Agency 

201 East 11th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No. H- 891 

Re: Role of Texas Education Agency under the 

Comprehensive Employment 

and Training Act, and 

related questions. 

Dear Commissioner Brockette: 

You have asked several questions concerning the relationship between Texas law and Title I of the Comprehensive 

Employment and Training Act (CETA), 29 U.S.C. 55 801-822 

(19731, with respect to the receipt of funds and the administration of programs at the local level. An understanding 

of the problem requires a brief explanation of the system 

set out in CETA for the disbursement of funds and planning 

and implementation of manpower programs. Under CETA, funds 

are to be distributed to organizational units known as 

"prime sponsors," which design and implement "comprehensive 

manpower plans" for allocation of funds within their jurisdictional areas. The chief entities which can serve as 

prime sponsors are the States themselves and units of "general 

local government" meeting minimum population levels. 29 

U.S.C. § 812(a) (1973). Each eligible prime sponsor is to 

submit to the Secretary of Labor a comprehensive manpower 

plan, under which it will endeavor to provide services which 

may include, inter alia, education, institutional skill 

training, and manpower training. 29 U.S.C. § 811(3), (10) 

(1973). Upon approval of a prime sponsor's plan, the 

Secretary of Labor is to grant funds directly to the prime 

sponsor for implementing the plan. 

P. 3750 
The Honorable M. L. Brockette - page 2 (H-891) 

Conflicts result when the CETA system for providing 

manpower services through prime sponsors is superimposed on 

the existing Texas educational system. Texas law vests 

local control of educational functions in the boards of 

trustees of local public school districts, Education Code 

§S 22.01, 23.01, 24.03, and provides for vocational and adult 

education to be provided by public school districts, public 

junior colleges, and state colleges and universities. Education Code 5s 11.18(c), 31.31(b), 31.40. Lacking the requisite 

general governmental powers, such as police and taxation 

powers, these entities are not considered units of "general 

local government" and cannot serve as prime sponsors. See 

H.R. Rep. No. 93-659, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 2935, 2941 (1973). 

On the other hand, cities and counties do possess general 

governmental powers and can qualify as prime sponsors under 

CETA -- thereby becoming able to provide educational services 

which would not otherwise be theirs to provide under Texas 

law. 

We turn first to your question of whether cities and 

counties are given the authority under Texas statutes to 

serve as prime sponsors, and provide the types of services 

contemplated in CETA. Our ability to answer this question 

is limited somewhat by the'importance of the local city 

charter in establishing the existence or absence of such 

authority for a municipality, and by the inevitable ambiguity 

of an opinion written without a detailed examination of the 

activities to be carried out under each individual comprehensive manpower plan. Each local prime sponsor will 

necessarily have some responsibility to determine such 

matters for itself. We can, however, provide some general 

guidelines. 

A home rule city may exercise all powers set out in the 

city charter so long as the powers are not denied by the 

Constitution or general statutes. Burch v. City of San 

Antonio, 518 S.W.2'd 540, 543 (Tex. Sup. 1975). We have 

found no constitutional or statutory provision which would 

prohibit a home rule city from providing any of the services 

permissible under CETA. Cities incorporated under general 

or special laws must look to their charters for authority. 

P. 3751 
*. . 

The Honorable M. L. Brockette - page 3 (H-891) 

Counties are given more limited powers under Texas law, 

with the requirement of express authorization in the Constitution and statutes for any function to be performed by the 

county and its commissioners. Laramey, The Legal Authority 

of Texas Counties to Contract for the Dellvery of -- 

Services to its (sz) Residents, 37 Tex. B.J. 9?? (1974). 

With thls-iiaation in mind, this office has held that, by 

virtue of article 2351, V.T.C.S., a county commissioners 

court could contract with the Department of Labor under 

federal statutes for services quite similar in some respects 

to the projects permissible under a CETA comprehensive 

manpower plan so long as the contract limited the program 

to "paupers, the indigent, the needy, and the poor." Attorney 

General Opinion M-605 (1970). We believe that a county may 

serve as a prime sponsor under CETA and implement a comprehensive manpower plan which similarly limits its availability 

to the poor persons within the county. 

We further note, however, the availability under CETA 

of a consortium form of prime sponsorship with two or more 

units of general local government participating, so long as 

one of the governments would qualify as a prime sponsor if 

acting alone, 29 U.S.C. 5 812(a) (3) (19731, and also a 

multijurisdictional form of prime sponsorship pursuant to an 

agreement between the State and a unit of general local 

government having the requisite population. 29 C.F.R. 5 

95.3(b) (1) (1975). These two forms of organization could 

provide more flexibility of operation, with the county 

participating only in services which aid the poor and needy 

within county limits, and other programs implemented by the 

other participants in the consortium or multijurisdictional 

agreement. Cf. Attorney General Opinion M-689 (1970). 

Your next question is whether Texas law prohibits 

cities and counties, seeking status as local prime sponsors, 

from making direct application for, and receiving, federal 

funds for the types of programs contemplated by CETA. You 

have referred us specifically to section 11.02(c) of the 

Education Code, which reads: 

P. 3752 
. . . 

The Honorable M. L. Brockette - page 4 (H-891) 

Except for agreements entered into by the 

governing board of a state university or 

college, the Central Education Agency shall 

be the sole agency of the State of Texas 

empowered to enter into agreements with 

respect to education undertakings, including 

provision of school lunches and the construction of school buildings, with an agency of the 

federal government. No county board of education or board of trustees of a school district 

shall enter into contracts with, or accept 

money from, an agency of the federal government except under rules and regulations prescribed by the Central Education Agency. 

We do not believe that section 11.02(c) .prevents cities 

and counties from contracting directly with the federal 

government to serve as local prime sponsors of CETA programs. 

Section 11.02(a) gives to the Texas Education Agency "general 

control of the system of public education," and we believe 

that the "education undertakings" referred to in section 

11.02(c) must likewise be a part of the “system of public 

education" to come within the scope of that section. CETA 

is clearly not a part of the system of public education. The 

purpose of CETA is: 

[T]o provide job training and employment 

opportunities for economically disadvantaged, 

unemployed, and underemployed persons, and to 

assure that training and other services lead 

to maximum employment opportunities and enhance 

self-sufficiency. . . . 29 U.S.C. 5 801 (1973). 

CETA manpower services include a broad range of programs and 

activities, including referral services, health care, medical 

care, child care, assistance in securing bonds and transitional 

public service employment programs. 29 U.S.C. S 811 (1973). 

The programs created by CETA would be in the realm of employment programs, rather than traditional programs of public 

education. Not insignificantly, CETA programs are administered on the federal level by the Department of Labor -- 

not the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. It 

is, therefore, our opinion that CETA programs are not within 

the scope of section 11.02(c) of the Education Code, even 

though some aspects of CETA services may be described broadly 

p. 3753 
. . . 

The Honorable M. L. Brockette - page 5 (H-891) 

as "educational* in nature. To find otherwise would require 

that numerous federally funded programs with some educational 

aspects, such as family planning services, maternal and 

child -health services, child abuse programs and law enforcement assistance programs, could be contracted for only by 

the Texas Education Agency. We think it clear that the 

Legislature did not intend such a result in enacting section 

11.02(c). 

Finally, you have asked whether the answers to either 

of the foregoing questions differ for funds appropriated 

through the Governor under 29 U.S.C. 5s 813(c) and 822 (1973). 

Under these two sections, five per cent of CETA's funds are 

to be appropriated to State governors for assisting local 

prime sponsors in providing vocational education and related 

services. The statute and regulations require that programs 

to be provided with these funds be pursuant to an agreement 

between the local prime sponsor and the State board having 

authority over vocational education -- in Texas. the Texas 

State Board for Vocational Education. 29 U.S.C: S 822(c) 

(1973); 29 C.F.R. 5 95.58 (1975). 

Applicable regulations require the local prime sponsor 

to submit to the State Board for Vocational Education its 

plan for use of the section 813(c) funds appropriated for 

use in its area: the only constraint on the authority of the 

Board to approve or disapprove the plan is that such plan 

must be consistent with the prime sponsor's comprehensive 

manpower plan. 29 C.F.R. fi 95.58(a) (1975). The very 

nature of an "agreement," as this arrangement is denominated 

in the statute and regulations, is that it is not consummated 

until both parties are satisfied with the terms which result. 

Since federal law gives the State Board for Vocational 

Education the power to approve or disapprove the plan, and 

limits that power only by requiring that the plan be consistent with the prime sponsor's comprehensive manpower 

plan, we believe the State Board is free to impose any 

reasonable limitations upon the expenditure of section 

813(c) funds, whether or not required by State law, so long 

as the plan finally approved by the State Board is consistent 

with the Act and regulations and the prime sponsor's comprehensive manpower plan. 

P. 3754 
The Honorable M. L. Brockette - page 6 (H-891) 

SUMMARY 

Texas statutes do not prohibit municipalities from serving as local prime 

sponsors under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), so long as 

the local city charter authorizes the city 

to provide the types of services contemplated 

in CETA. Counties may also serve as prime 

sponsors pursuant to their statutory duty 

to provide for poor persons within the county. 

Neither cities nor counties are prohibited 

from entering into agreements with the federal 

government such as the comprehensive manpower 

plans required of prime sponsors. The State 

Board for Vocational Education may impose 

reasonable limitations in providing vocational 

education services to prime sponsors with CETA 

funds appropriated to it through the Governor. 

Very truly yours, 

eneral of Texas 

DAVID ,& KENDALL, First Assistant 

c&igi$&man 

Opinion CommittLe 

jwb 

P- 3755