. 

M.4RK WHITE 

Attorney General 

The Attorney General of Texas 

May 1, 1979 

Bonorable Steve Simmons 

Diitrict Attorney 

Rl Paso County Courthouse 

El Paso, 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 of a county operating under 

article 51424 V.T.C.S., is required to approve the budget for compensation 

of juvenile probation officers submitted by the juvenile board. 

Article 5142b provides in part: 

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 a salary fixed by the appointing officer. We believe 

the language of article 5142b requires 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, 506 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1974, writ 

ref’d n.r.e.); Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 471 S.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 was not authorized to reject a budget submitted by the district judge 

unless the budget was so unreasonable, 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 5142b nor similar language 

which would broaden the responsibility of the juvenile board. 

Accordingly, it is our opinion that a commissioners court operating under 5142b has 

the authority to decline to approve a budget for compensation of juvenile probation 

officers submitted by the 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 of Texas. 

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

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

David B. Brooks 

Scott Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

‘William G Reid 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 45