The Honorable Bill Moore 

Johnson County Attorney 

Guinn Justice Center 

204 South Buffalo Avenue 

Fourth Floor, Suite 4 10 

Cleburne, Texas 76033-5404 

GREG ABBOTT 

September 2 1,2007 

Opinion No. GA-057 1 

Re: Responsibility for selection and discontinuance 

of financial software used by the office of the 

county auditor (RQ-0583-GA) 

Dear Mr. Moore: 

You ask about the Johnson County Auditor's responsibility and authority regarding the 

selection of financial software.' Your specific questions are: 

1. If the County Auditor decides that the financial software 

currently being used is unsatisfactory and creating problems and 

issues in the performance of his duties, does the County Auditor 

have the authority under Sections 112.001 or 84.901 of the 

Local Government Code to choose the computer software for 

use by the county auditor's office? 

2. If the financial software offered by two or more vendors meet[s] 

the specifications as requested by the County Auditor, does the 

County Auditor have the authority under Sections 112.001 or 

84.901 of the Local Government Code to determine which 

computer software to purchase assuming that there is not a 

substantial difference in the costs of purchasing one or the 

other? 

3. If the Commissioners Court votes to discontinue the use of the 

financial software being used by the County Auditor's Office 

and to replace that financial software with another financial 

software, does the County Auditor have the authority under 

Sections 1 12.001 or 84.901 of the Local Government Code to 

continue usage of the current financial software over objections 

of the Commissioners Court? 

Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. 

'See Letter from Honorable Bill Moore, Johnson County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General 

of Texas, at 1 (Apr. 19, 2007) (on file with the Opinion Committee, also available at http:/lwww.oag.state.tx.us) 

[hereinafter Request Letter]. 
The Honorable Bill Moore - Page 2 (GA-0571) 

As background, you inform us that Johnson County ("County"), with a population of less 

than 190,000, has acentralized computer system. See id. This system provides a "computer network 

for use by all of the elected officials' offices and county departments." Id. at 2. Recently, because 

of the commissioners court's dissatisfaction with the then-current software and based on a local 

committee's recommendation for new software, the County purchased a new financial software 

package. See id. You tell us that, after months of using the new software, various county 

departments reported significantly different evaluations. See id. While the auditor was satisfied with 

the operation of the software and the purchasing agent considered it suitable despite some problems, 

the personnel department and the treasurer's office found the software cumbersome and inefficient. 

See id. After reviewing a report detailing the problems associated with the new software and 

meeting with the vendor, the commissioners court "decided to discontinue use of the financial 

software and evaluate [reverting] to the previous software." Id. 

You inform us that the commissioners court's decision to discontinue the use of the software 

was made over the objection of the auditor, who suggested the matter be postponed for further study 

and consideration. See id. You state that when the commissioners court changed the financial 

software, the auditor filed suit against various county officials. See id. You further inform us that 

the commissioners court, in an effort to avoid litigation costs, "rescinded its decision to change 

software" and settled with the auditor by agreeing not to "take any action that purports to direct or 

dictate what computer software is necessary for the proper discharge of the County Auditor's 

Office." Id. at 3. Though the matter has been settled for the present, you inform us the issue is 

"subject to repetition" and seek our "clarification as to the authority of the County Auditor to 

determine computer software for use by the County Auditor's Office." Id. 

You qualify your first question by asking about "software for use by the county auditor's 

office." Id, at 1. Thus we focus our consideration on the auditor's authority to direct the use of 

particular software by the auditor's office without regard to any requisite use of the software by other 

county offices. Section 84.901, Local Government Code, authorizes a county auditor to "purchase, 

at the county's expense and in the manner provided by law, necessary ledgers, books, records, blank 

forms, stationery, equipment, telephone service, and postage." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. 8 

84.90 1 (Vernon 1999). Section 1 12.00 1 of the same code authorizes a county auditor in counties 

that have a population of less than 190,000 to 

adopt and enforce regulations, not inconsistent with law or with a rule 

adopted [by the Comptroller of Public account^],^ that the auditor 

considers necessary for the speedy and proper collecting, checking, 

and accounting of the revenues and other funds and fees that belong 

to the county. 

Id. § 112.001 (footnote added). Collectively, these provisions have been construed to clothe the 

office of county auditor with an "impressive array of independent administrative duties and 

discretionary powers." Comm 'rs Ct. ofHarris County v. Fullerton, 596 S. W.2d 572,576 (Tex. Civ. 

App.-Houston [I st Dist.] 1980, writ ref d n.r.e.). 

2Section 112.003, Local Government Code, authorizes the comptroller of public accounts to "prescribe the 

manner of keeping and stating the accounts of the [county] officials." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 112.003(a) 

(Vernon Supp. 2006). 
The Honorable Bill Moore - Page 3 (GA-0571) 

Pursuant to the authority under these two sections, a Texas court of appeals found in 

Fullerton that a county auditor is authorized to provide his or her office with a computer, as well as 

the equipment and services necessary for the computer, to enable the auditor to perform the statutory 

auditor duties. See id. at 576-77 (construing statutory predecessors to sections 84.901 and 112.001). 

In Fullerton, the court upheld the auditor's authority over the refusal of the commissioners court to 

fund the computer, equipment, and services. See id, at 577. The court reasoned that when the 

authority of a county auditor granted in sections 84.901 and 112.001 conflicts with the 

commissioners court's authority over the county budget, the specific authority of the county auditor 

prevails over the general authority of the commissioners court. See id. The court determined that 

a commissioners court may review and reject an auditor's budget request only to the extent that an 

item under section 84.901 or 112.001 is excessive or unreasonable in its financial impact on the 

county. See id. And while the court determined that the commissioners court abused its discretion 

in refusing to fund the equipment, the court did nothing to negate the commissioners court's 

authority to determine whether a request is financially excessive or unreasonable. See id. at 578; see 

also Guerrero v. Refugio County, 946 S.W.2d 558,567 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) 

overruled inpart on other grounds by NME Hosps., Inc. v. Rennels, 994 S.W.2d 142, 147 (Tex. 

1999) (recognizing based on Fullerton that the "County could only disapprove of the [auditor's] 

purchases if they were excessive or an unreasonable demand on the county's funds"). 

Thus, under Fullerton a commissioners court must approve a county auditor's request for 

items necessary to the operation of the county auditor's office if the request is not financially 

excessive or unreasonable. See Fullerton, 596 S. W.2d at 577 (deciding that the commissioners court 

did not have authority to impose uniform computerized records system on auditor's office). But see 

TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. $5 1 1 1 .013, .044, ,074 (Vernon 1999) (adopted after Fullerton and 

providing that an increase from one year to the next in the amount budgeted for expenses of an 

auditor's office shall not exceed 5% without approval of commissioners court). To the extent you 

are concerned about the auditor's choice of financial software to be used solely by the auditor's 

office, we conclude that absent a financially excessive or unreasonable request, the auditor has 

authority to choose the financial software for use in the auditor's office. And again, absent a 

financially excessive or unreasonable request, that authority includes the discretion to choose 

between vendors and to continue using a particular financial software over the objections of the 

commissioners court. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. At the same time, however, the 

authority and discretion to determine what is financially excessive or unreasonable rests with the 

commissioners court as the authority over the county budget and finances. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T 

CODE ANN. $5 1 1 1.008(a)-(b), .039(a)-(b) (Vernon 1 999).3 The commissioners court may consider 

in its determination the practical and financial ramifications of the auditor's choice of software on 

other offices. 

3See also Randall County Comm 'rs Ct. v. Sherrod, 854 S.W.2d 9 14,927 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1993, no writ) 

("Article V, section 18 of the Texas Constitution establishes the commissioners court as the principal governing body 

of the county. Under this authority, the commissioners court has the power to determine the county budget and 

appropriate funds."). 
The Honorable Bill Moore - Page 4 (GA-0571) 

SUMMARY 

Absent a financially excessive or unreasonable request as 

determined by the county commissioners court, a county auditor has 

authority to choose the financial software for use in his or her office. 

Subject to the same limitation, that authority includes the discretion 

to choose between vendors and to continue using a particular 

financial software over the objections of the county commissioners 

court. 

~ttornuneral ofTexas 

KENT C. SULLIVAN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

NANCY S. FULLER 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Charlotte M. Harper 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee