.

M.4RK WHITE Attorney General 

# The Attorney General of Texas May 1, 1979

Bonorable Steve Simmons Diitrict Attorney RlPaso County Courthouse ElPaso, Texas Opinion No.MB-15 Re: Whether the commissioners court is required to approve salaries designated by the juvenile board under article 5142b. ,Dear Mr.Simmons: You have asked if the commissioners court ofacounty operating under article 51424 V.T.C.S., is required to approve the budget for compensation ofjuvenile probation officers submitted bythe juvenile board. Article 5142bprovides inpart: Section 3.

. .. The number of such Assistant Probation Officers shalt be determined by the Juvenile Boards subject to the approval of the Commissioners Court, provided such power of appointment and confirmation shall become effective immediately upon final passage of this Act, and the budget shall be amended, if necessary, to provide sufficient funds for the operation of this Act.

.... Section 5. The compensation of all probation officers shall be fixed by the Juvenile Board subject to the approval of the County Commissioners Court, which shall be not less than Three Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars ($3,600) per annum for the Chief Probation Officer, and not less than One Thousand, Eight Hundred Dollars ($l,800) per annum for Assistants or Deputies An identical statutory formulation, article 332a, V.T.C.S., WRS considered in Attorney General Opinion H-908 (1976). There it was said that the salaries set by the appointing officer were not final but were conditioned

p- 43. -
Honorable Steve’Simmons - Page Two (NW-15)

upon the approval of the commissioners court. While the commissioners court could not fix a salary itself, it could disapprove asalary fixed by the appointing officer. Webelieve the language of article 5142brequires the same result. See also Attorney General Opinion H-1296 (1978). It has been suggested that Commissioners Court of Hays County v. District Judge, 22nd Judicial District of Hays County, 506S.W.2d630(Tex. Civ. App.- Austin 1974,writ ref’d n.r.e.); Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 471S.W.2d 100(Tex. Civ. Appl - Amarillo 1971,writ ref’d n.r.e.) and Attornev General Ooinion M-393 (1969)reouire an opposite result. Each involved the appointment of adult‘ probation officers under section 10 of article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, and each concluded that the commissioners court wasnot authorized to reject abudget submitted by the district judge unless the budget was sounreasonable, arbitrary or capricious that it would amount to an abuse of discretion. The language relating to the commissioners court’s duty in those cases’was ambiguous, and in each instance the Attorney General or the courts relied on the rest of the act to ascertain the legislative intent. The statute specifically indicated that this purpose was to place responsibility for probation supervision wholly within the state courts. There is neither a similar ambiguity in article 5142bnor similar language which wouldbroaden the responsibility of thejuvenile board. Accordingly, it is our opinion that acommissioners court operating under 5142bhas the authority to decline to approve a budget for compensation of juvenile probation officers submitted bythe juvenile board. SUMMARY Under article 5142b, V.T.C.S., the budget for compensation of juvenile probation officers submitted by the juvenile board is subject to the approval of the commissioners court.



# y$?gTLg
Attorney General ofTexas. JOHN W. FAINTER, JR First Assiit~t Attorney General TED L.HARTLEY Executive Assiitant Attorney General Prepared by C.Robert Heath Assistant Attorney General

p- 44Honorable Steve Simmons - Page Three (MW-15)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE C. Robert Heath, Chairman David B.Brooks Scott Garrison Rick Gilpin
‘William GReid Bruce Youngblood

p. 45