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 ,#ith the 

details of the content of any such proposed financial 

statements, we assume for purposes of discussion that they 

would contain information similar to that required of certain 

state officials by article 6252-9b. V.T.C.S. .~ 

It is well established that a home .rule city may 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. City OFGroves, 

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 

fin Attorney General Opinion H-15 (19731, the public has "a 

legitimate interest in the 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 to be no constitutional or statutory provision which would per se prohibit a home 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 of other statutes prescribe further eligibility requirements for certain offices. See e.g. V.T.C.S. - -- 

P- 4035 
The 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 se prohibits the imposition of additional requirements, 

we believe that a home rule city is authorized to prescribe 

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 for holding a municipal office 

in addition to those imposed by state law, so long as such 

conditions are not inconsistent therewith. See * 

&;Ttate errel. 

Do le v. City of Dearborn, 121 N.W.Zd 473, 4576 (Mich. 

Isham v. w of Spokane, 98 P.2d 

306, 3Oms.K m0); Lindzy v. D?%iin uez 20 P.2d 327, 

328 (Cal. 1933). Of course, no -+ condzt on of holding office 

may be prescribed in contravention of the due process and 

equal protection guarantees of the State and Federal Constltution. Thompson v. Gallagher, 489 F.2d 443, 449 (5th Cir. 1973). 

Furthermore, if se requirement of financial disclosure is 

imposed by ordinance, the municipality must first determine 

that such ordinance is not in violation of any provision of 

its charter. city of Fort Worth 5 Lillard, 272 S.W. 577, 580 -- 

(Tex. Civ. APP. -- Ft. Worth 1925). 

In general, however, 

aff'd 294 S.W. 831 (Tex. 

1927). it is-our opinion that a home 

rule city is authorized to require its public officials to file 

financial disclosure statements as a condition of holding office. 

As to general law cities, their powers are'derived from 

article 11, section 4 of the Texas 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 such power is granted to general law 

cities. It is generally held that non-home rule municipalities 

have only those powers which are specifically granted them 

by the Legislature. Ex parte 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, no writ). 

Counties, too, have only those powers which are clearly 

set forth in the Constitution and statutes. Harrison County 

v- City of Marshall, 253 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Tex. Civ. App. -- - 

P. 4036 
The 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 that neither a non-home rule 

city nor county may require its officials 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 a condition of 

holding office, but general law cities 

and counties may not do so without express 

authorization from the Legislature. 

Very truly yours, 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

km1 

p. 4037