# TIXEATIWRNEYGENERAL OFTEXAS

~IXSTIN. ~-II 76711
April 1, 1977

The Bonorabie W. E. Snelson Chairman Opinion XC. H-969
Senate Committee on Intergovern- Re: Whether a city or mental Relations county can require disState Capitol ~closure of public officials Austin, Texas assets and income.
Dear Chairman Snelson:

You have requested our opinion regarding whether municipalities and counties may require their public'officials to file financial disclosure statements as a conditron of holding office. Although you have not provided us ,#iththe details of the content of any suchproposed financial statements, we assume forpurposes of discussion that they would contain information similar to that required of certain state officials by article 6252-9b. V.T.C.S. .~
It iswell established that ahome .rulecitymay exercise any power not inconsistent with the Texas Constitution or with general law. Tex. Const. art. 11, §5;V.T.C.S. art. 1165: City of Sweetwater v. Geron, 1964); Wagstaff v. CityOFGroves, 380 S.W.Zd 550, 552 (Tex. 419 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Beaumont 19-,-wxref'd n.r.e.1. As'we noted finAttorney General Opinion H-15 (19731, thepublic has "a legitimate interest inthe current financial condition and recent financial history~of those of its servants who are in positions of authority." Id. at 2. On that basis, we have upheld the constitutional validity of article.6252-9b. Attorney General Opinion H-190 (1973).
There appears tobe no constitutional or statutory provision which would per seprohibit ahome rule city from requiring that its officials file financial disclosure statements as a condition of holding office. The Texas Election Code imposes certain eligibility requirements upon persons who hold elective office, and specifically permits a home rule city to prescribe "different age and residence requirements from those prescribed" by statute. Election Code, art. 1.05 (Subdiv. 3.). In addition, a number ofother statutes prescribe further eligibility requirements forcertain offices. See e.g.V.T.C.S. - --

P- 4035The Honorable W. E. Snelson -page 2 (R-969)

arts. 987, 1003, 1004. Even assuming that requiring the filing of these financial statements would constitute a "qualification" for office, the statutory qualifications have not been deemed exclusive and since neither the Constitution nor any statute per seprohibits the imposition of additional requirements, we believe that ahome rule city is authorized toprescribe them.
We are supported in this conclusion by a number of decisions from other jurisdictions. The general rule is that a city may establish conditions forholding amunicipal office in addition to those imposed by state law, so long as such conditions are not inconsistent therewith. See *
&;Ttate errel. Do lev. City of Dearborn, 121N.W.Zd 473, 4576 (Mich. Ishamv. w of Spokane, 98P.2d 306, 3Oms.K m0); Lindzy v. D?%iinuez 20 P.2d 327, 328 (Cal.1933). Of course, -+ no condzt on of holding office may be prescribed in contravention of thedueprocess and equal protection guarantees of the State and Federal Constltution. Thompson v. Gallagher, 489F.2d 443, 449 (5thCir. 1973). Furthermore, ifse requirement of financial disclosure is imposed by ordinance, themunicipality must first determine that such ordinance isnot inviolation of any provision of its charter. city of FortWorth 5 Lillard, 272 S.W. 577, 580 -- (Tex.Civ.APP. -- Ft.Worth 1925).

Ingeneral, however, aff'd 294 S.W. 831 (Tex. 1927). it is-our opinion that a home rule city isauthorized to require itspublic officials to file financial disclosure statements as a condition of holding office.
As togeneral law cities, their powers are'derived from article 11, section 4of theTexas Constitution. While home rule cities are authorized to amend their charters and adopt ordinances, subject only to the limitation that neither charter nor ordinance may be inconsistent with the Constitution or with general law, no suchpower isgranted to general law cities. It isgenerally held that non-home rulemunicipalities have only thosepowers which are specifically granted them by the Legislature. Exparte Farley, 144 S.W. 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912); StaG ex rel. Rea v. Etheridge, 32 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Tex.Comm'n. Ai%.T30).i%iint adopted, 36 S.W.2d 983'(Tex..l937); Lindslek-v. Dallas-C&solid&ed Street Railway z, 200 S.W. 207,ilm. Civ.App. --Dallas 1917, nowrit). Counties, too, have only those powerswhich are clearly set forth in the Constitution and statutes. Harrison County
v- City ofMarshall, 253 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Tex.Civ. App. --

-

P. 4036The Honorable W. E. Snelson -page 3 (~-969)

Ft.Worth 1952, writ ref'd); Wichita County v. Vance, 217 S.W.2d 702. 703 (Tex.Civ. App. --Ft.Worth 19nrit ref'd n.r.e.1. It is thus our view thatneither a non-home rule city nor county may require itsofficials to file financial disclosure statements without express authorization from the Legislature.
SUMMARY

Home rule cities may require their public officials to file financial disclosure statements as acondition of holding office, but general law cities and counties may not do sowithout express authorization from the Legislature. Very trulyyours,

APPROVED:

Opinion Committee
km1

p. 4037