August 9, 1999 

Ms. Kristen Klein 

Guadalupe County Auditor 

307 West Court, Suite 205 

Seguin, Texas 78 155 

The Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr. 

Montgomery County Attorney 

Courthouse 

301 North Main Street, 3rd Floor 

Conroe. Texas 77301 

Opinion No. JC-0085 

Re: Authority of a commissioners court to set 

salaries for employees of a juvenile probation 

department and related questions (RQ-963) 

Dear Ms. Klein and Mr. Bass: 

You have each asked this office questions concerning the authority of a juvenile probation 

board vis-a-vis the commissioners court. While Ms. Klein’s questions are somewhat more detailed, 

in both cases we believe that prior opinions of this office dictate the same result. Ultimately, in our 

view, the juvenile probation board is an independent entity whose acts are subject to very limited 

scrutiny by the commissioners court of the county in which it is located. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. 

No. DM-460 (1997). This conclusion underpins our answers to your questions. 

We begin with the question which you have both asked, namely the effect of Local 

Government Code section 111.094, added by the Seventy-fifth Legislature in 1997. Section 

111.094 reads, “The commissioners court in preparing the county budget shall determine the amount 

of countyfunds to be spent for the juvenile probation department in the county budget.” TEX. LOC. 

GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 111.094 (Vernon 1999) (emphasis added). Mr. Bass asks, in effect, how to 

read this provision together with section 152.0004 of the Human Resources Code, the general 

provision with regard to expenses of a juvenile board, which requires the commissioners court 

to pay from the general fund “the salaries of juvenile probation personnel and other expenses 

certified as necessary by the juvenile board chairman.” TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. 5 152.0004 

(Vernon 1990); see Letter from Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr., Montgomery County Attorney, to 

Honorable Dan Morales, Attorney General (July 30, 1997) [hereinafter “Bass Letter”]. Ms. Klein 

references Human Resources Code section 152.1001(d), the particular provision for Guadalupe 

County, which requires the court to “provide the necessary funds to pay the salary and expenses of 

thejuvenile probation officer.” Id. § 152.1001(d); see Letter from Kristen Klein, Guadalupe County 

Auditor, to Office ofthe Attorney General, Opinion Committee (March 3 1,1997) [hereinafier“Klein 
Ms. Kristen Klein - Page 2 

The Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr. 

(JC-0085) 

Letter”]. You each ask in light of these provisions who has the authority to set the budget of the 

juvenile department. 

As this offtce pointed out in opinion DM-460: 

The department is funded with both county and state timds. [TEx. 

HUM. RES. CODE ANN. 5s 141.081, ,084, 152.004, ,005, .0012 

(Vernon 1990 & Supp. 1999); see TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. 

5 111.094 (Vernon 1999)]. Although the board is required to submit 

the department’s budget to the commissioners court, the latter’s 

authority over the budget is limited. [TEx. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. 

5s 142.002,152.007, .0012 (Vernon 1990 & Supp. 1999); TEX.LOC. 

GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 II 1.094 (Vernon 1999)]. A commissioners 

court has no authority to consider or review the portion of the 

department budget funded with state funds. [See TEX. HUM. RES. 

CODE ANN. § 152.0012 (Vernon Supp. 1999)]. With respect to the 

items funded by the county, the commissioners court[] may only 

determine the total dollar amount of county funds allocated to the 

department. [TEx. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 111.094 (Vernon 

1999)]. It may not determine the particular purposes or amounts of 

any expenditures from these or any other funds the department 

receives. 

Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-460 (1997) at 2-4 (footnotes omitted); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. 

No. MW-587 (1982). 

Thus, the commissioners court’s role in the budgeting of the juvenile probation department 

is limited to setting the dollar amount ofcounty funds in the department’s budget and reviewing that 

portion of the budget on an abuse of discretion standard. See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. 

§ 152.0012 (Vernon Supp. 1999). The statutes do not give the commissioners court authority to 

determine how the funds are to be expended. 

This understanding informs our answers to the last set of questions in Ms. Klein’s request 

as well. The questions arose with respect to a controversy regarding the employment oftwo juvenile 

detention officers. The questions concern whether the juvenile board or the commissioners court 

has authority over the employment decisions, travel policies, and general management and financial 

decisions regarding ajuvenile probation department or other program within the board’s jurisdiction. 

These decisions generally are within the purview of the board. Because the board itself is an 

independent entity, its policy decisions are not within the jurisdiction of the commissioners court. 

See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-460 (1997). Neither are its employment decisions-whether they 

concern hiring, retention, salaries, or raises. The commissioners court may decide the dollar amount 

it will give the board, and may review county-funded programs to the extent they are county-funded. 
Ms. Kristen Klein - Page 3 

The Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr. 

(JC-0085) 

But it has no general supervisory authority over the board, or over those matters within the board’s 

jurisdiction. 

Since that is the case, we can answer as well those questions relating to whether the 

commissioners court must consider in meeting and approve the expenses of the juvenile office, or 

of the juvenile probation department, or of the juvenile detention department, before paying such 

claims, as well as the question of whether the commissioners court must approve any amendment 

ofthe board’s budget which does not require additional funds. We answer all these questions in the 

negative. Because the court has no supervisory authority over the board, it has no such approval 

power as the questions presuppose.’ As this office has previously noted, “a requirement that the 

commissioners court review and approve juvenile board or department expenditures is contrary to 

the board’s budgetary and financial independence.” Id. at 10. 

Ms. Klein further asks whether the board, as distinct from the court, must meet and approve 

the payment of claims for the expenses of the juvenile office, juvenile probation department, or 

juvenile detention department before paying such claims. We find no requirement for such formal 

meeting and prior approval in the statute establishing the juvenile board. Moreover, procedures for 

the monitoring and review of board finances are already to be found in the rules promulgated by the 

Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (the “Commission”) at title 37 of the Texas Administrative 

Code, chapter 341. In particular, subsections (f) through (1) of section 341.2, all of which are 

mandatory, require the adoption ofwritten fiscal policies, an agreement to comply with Commission 

standards, the assignment of accounting responsibilities to an appropriate fiscal officer and the 

preparation and submission to the Commission of an annual operating budget, the deposit of 

Commission funds in a special fund in the county depository and the submission of an annual fiscal 

audit to the Commission, the covering of all employees with access to monies by surety bonds, fiscal 

audits of program expenditures, and the keeping of financial and statistical records. See 37 TEX. 

ADMIN. CODE 5 341.2(f)-(l) (1998). It would appear therefore that the Commission has adopted in 

these standards a comprehensive scheme to ensure sound fiscal practice by the board. Accordingly, 

while the board might, if it so chose, adopt requirements for board approval of the payment of 

various claims as part of its fiscal policy, nothing in the statute by which it is established requires 

it to do so. 

As to budget amendments, however, we believe that such amendments do require formal 

board action. Section 140,004(b)(2) of the Local Government Code requires the board to hold 

a meeting before adopting its annual budget. See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 140.004(b)(2) 

(Vernon 1999). Ms. Klein asks whether, should the board choose to amend that budget, it must do 

so in a formal meeting. In our view, the amendment of such a budget would also require a formal 

‘We note, however, that section 140.004 of the Local Government Code requires the tiling with the 

commissioners court of a copy of the proposed budget and a statement containing the date of the board’s meeting to 

finalize the budget. Since, as we determine later, any amendment of the budget requires board action of equal dignity 

with the section 140.004 requirements, such tiling must be made for amendments as well. See TEX. Lot. GOV’TCODE 

ANN. 5 140.004 (Vernon 1999). 
Ms. Kristen Klein - Page 4 

The Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr. 

(JC-0085) 

meeting and board action. Were it otherwise, and the power to amend the budget delegated, for 

example, to the chair alone, section 140.004 would in practice be reducible to a dead letter. 

Proceedings of equal dignity are necessary to avoid that result. 

Finally, Ms. Klein asks how to interpret the word “expenses” in section 152,1001(d) of the 

Human Resources Code. Section 152.1001 establishes the Guadalupe County Juvenile Board. 

Subsection (d) thereof provides, “The chairman [of the board] shall certify all claims for expenses 

of the juvenile probation officer as necessary in the performance of the officer’s duties. The 

commissioners court shall provide the necessary funds to pay the salary and expenses ofthe juvenile 

probation officer.” TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. g 152.1001(d) (Vernon 1990). Ms. Klein asks 

whether expenses here refer to out-of-pocket expenses of the officer himself, expenses “directly 

related to that officer,” or “all bills paid by the county for the operation ofthe probation department.” 

Klein Letter, supra, at 1. The last is, in our view, the correct interpretation. Subsection (d) parallels 

the general provision at section 152.0004 of the Human Resources Code, which requires payment 

of “the salaries of juvenile probation personnel and other expenses certified as necessary by the 

juvenile board chairman.“* TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. 3 152.0004 (Vernon 1990). Accordingly, 

“expenses” in Guadalupe County’s statute must be construed broadly, as is section 152.0004. The 

term is not limited to the particular expenses of the juvenile probation officer himself. 

SUMMARY 

Local Government Code section 111.094 gives a commissioners court only the authority to set the dollar amount ofthe county 

funds which it will expend on thejuvenile probation department. The 

commissioners court does not have general supervisory authority over 

the juvenile board, an independent entity, and therefore does not have 

authority over the board’s employment decisions or over individual 

line items in the budgets of programs under the board’s jurisdiction, 

such as the juvenile probation department or juvenile detention 

department. The commissioners court’s power of review over the 

juvenile probation department is limited to a review of the amount of 

county funds in that department’s budget on an abuse of discretion 

standard. Consequently the juvenile board, and not the commissioners court, has authority over the employment decisions, travel 

policies, and general management and financial decisions regarding 

a juvenile probation department, juvenile detention department, or 

juvenile detention facility. Further, the commissioners court has no 

authority to approve the expenses of programs under the jurisdiction 

‘As with other specific county statutes, the Guadalupe County statute deems section 152.0004 (as well as 

certain other subchapter A provisions) inapplicable, in OUT view, because the expenses provision is subsumed in section 

152.1001(d). 
Ms. Kristen Klein - Page 5 

The Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr. 

(X-0085) 

of the juvenile board before paying such claims, or to approve 

amendments of the board’s budget. 

General procedure for the monitoring and review ofjuvenile 

board finances and fiscal policy are to be found in the rules 

promulgated by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission at title 37 

Texas Administrative Code, chapter 341. While a juvenile board 

might, if it so chose, adopt requirements of board approval of the 

payment of various claims as part of its fiscal policy, it is not required 

by statute to do so. Budget amendments, however, require formal 

board action of equal dignity with the procedure for budget adoption 

outlined in section 140.004 of the Local Government Code. 

The term “expenses” in section 152.1001 (d) of the Human 

Resources Code-a part of the section establishing the Guadalupe 

County Juvenile Board-is, like the general expenses provision at 

section 152.0004 of the Human Resources Code, to be broadly 

construed. 

JOHN CORNYN 

Attorney General of Texas 

ANDY TAYLOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

CLARK KENT ERVIN 

Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel 

ELIZABETH ROBINSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

James E. Tourtelott 

Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee