This opinion modifies 

Opinion No. O-1126 

Honorable Len Alrup 

Exeoutive Secretary-Director 

State Comirrion for the Blind 

Land Office 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Alsupt Opinion No. O-5292 

Re: Approval of claims for pay7 

ment by State Comvlosio4 for the 

mind. 

Ue are in receipt'of your letter of "cy 6, 1943, inwhioh you sub. 

nit, the following question for our opinion: 

sPleass advise the State Commission for the Blind whether the Board of 

the State Conmission for the Hlind mey delegate to any of its members 

or to its executive secretary the authority to approve for payment all 

expenditures which may have been authorized by the State Comnission for 

the Blind." 

The State Commission for the Blind is provided for in Article 320% 

Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes (Aots 1931, 42nd Lag. p. 122, oh. 80, as 

amended Acts 1939, 46th Leg. S.B. So. 462). In Section 1, a three member 

board was originally provided for but by 1:. B. 362, Reg. Seer. 48th Leg., 

the membership of %~e Board was increased to six. A aareful examination 

of the acts relating to this oomsissionshcws that the full responsibility 

for performing the duties therein provided is vested in the ConmIssion as 

such. 

Section 1 8s emended provides that four members shall oo4stitute 8 

quorum for the transaction of businsss, end that the Comnirsion may annually elect a Sectetary and such other employees as may bs authoriaed by 

the general or special appropriation for raid Conmission. 

By Section (a) it is probided that: "The State Conmission for the 

Blind shall maintain a Bureau of Infornvtion . . . The Comnir~i~n shall 

in its discretion furnish materials, tools and books for the use as a 

mesn~ in rehibilitating such persons and it my establish workshops and 

salesrooms, and shall have authority to use any ~receipts or earningr that 

aoorue from the operation of industrial sohools, ralssrooms, or workshops 

as provided in thir Chapter . . . The Conmission may receive gifts, 

bequests, or devises from individuals, associationa or corporations, and 

mry expend them-in aooordenoe with the provisions of this Ad.” We have 
/ 

Hon. Lon Alsup, p.ge 2 (O-5292) 

not attempted to set out all the authorisation of the, Ctirrion, but 

quote the foregoing to demonstrate that the responsibility is vested 

directly in the C1nmuissio4 as such and that discretionary functions are 

committed to the Commission. 

Section 3 provides that: 

"The State Conmdsrio4 for the Blind may appoint and fix the compensation 

of an executive secretary and such other workers as may be necessspy to 

make effective the purposes of this bet within the rppropriations provided.," 

Ws do not think that this section may be construed as vesting in the 

executive secretrry any discretionary authority whichwould be normally vested in the Commission as the he&d of the dep+rtment or division of State government. The exeoutive secretary is an employee of the Cdrsion wrkiag 

under the direction of the Commission in oarrying out its directions, and 

he is given no authority by the statute independent of the Conmission. I4 

other words, in matters involving the exeroise of discretion, he may act 8s 

an exeoutiw officer to oarry out and perform only those things wherein the 

Cornmission has exeroised the discretion. 

In Horne Zoological Arena Compeny va. City of Dallas, 45 S.pi. (2d) 714, 

the court had the following to say with reference to the delegation of suthoritya 

"The general rule is that, where the law creates a board to have oharge of 

the affairs of 8 municipality or a particular part thereof, such board may 

appoint egents to dhsoharge ministerial duties notcelling for the exeroise 

of reason or discretion, but it cannot go beyond this and delegate to 

others the disoharge of duties whioh or11 for reason or discretion, end 

which are regarded as part of the public trust assumed by the board. The 

power to exercise discretion in matters entrusted to such boards cannot bs 

delegated, surrendered, or bartered away. 

w . The psrk board was charged with the trust of spending the money set 

rbiie for the maintenance of parka, and it could not *void its responsibility by delegating to other8 the authority to act for it in the purobase of 

such animals tithout limit 8sto the kind of snim8ls to be pxobased or the 

prioe tobe paid therefor. The trial court correctly held thst Jacoby 

merely by virtue of his authority as director of parek did not hsve authority to m&e the contract in question." 

m duo 00.11 attenth to the following *tatutes.~ 

'3 

,, 

&ticle 4344, R.C. S. 1926, Subdivision 4, provides that the Comptroller shalls 

"Require all aooounts presented to him for settlement not otherwise provid-, 

ed for by law to be made on forms prescribed by him, all suoh accounts to 

be verified by affidrvit~ as to their correctness, mnd he may &n.i4ister ~ 
Hon 0 Len. Aloup - page 3 (O-5292) 

the oath himself in any c8se in which he my deem it neaessmy,” 

&+icle 4355 R.C. S. 1925, as' 

oh. 243, providss among other things: 

amended, Acts 1931, 42nd Leg., p. 400, 

"All claims and account8 against the State shall be suhnitted on forms prescribed by the Comptroller and in duplicate, when required by him except 

018ims for pensions, and shall be so prepared as to provide for the entering 

thereon, for the us0 of the Comptroller's Deparkmnt, as wellas other appropriate matters, the following: 

"1. Signature of the herd of the department or other psrson responsible 

for incurring the expanditurc.c 

Wc think it clear from the provisions of Article 32078 ---.- that “-- the -” “State .,S”” 

Commission for the Blind is the head of the Separtment ,,V. or Alrini division nn -4 of the the 

State govermnent (State Board of Registration for Rrof ss 

Hatter, 139 S.W. (2d) 169; Rainay v . ~a104e, 141 S.11, ?2dj%&%%;:pg (2d] 713) w%hf:r* V* T-* 

the meaning of Article 4355 55 and be8rsa the reSpo4sibilitg responsibility for incurring incurring the 

expsnditur& oftkhhat deperhnent~ 

Sevsral opinions have previously been written by this department 

upon this subject. The first towhi'ch we refer wae rendered December 4, 

1935 8t the request of the Qraeos River Conservation mad Reclamation District. 

It was there ruled that the Saud of Directors of said Distriot could not delegate to its agent or a ocxmi+$ee authority to l pp-ove expenses incurred by 

the District so 8s to l uthorisc the Comptroller to issue a warrant. 1twa* 

pointed out in the opinion that the Board could delegate purely ministerial 

or exeautivs function8 but that specific authorieation or approval 04 the part 

of the Board ma8 required before the expenditures became a lawful charge 

against any appropriation of Stats funds. 

04 March 24. 1936 this deprtmcnt advised the St8te Comptroller that 

a majority of the Board of Insuranoe Commissioners was required to 8pprove 

any and all expenditures pertaining to the various departments of insurance 

exoept against one particular fund. This fundw8s 8n exception because the 

statute provided that payment should be made "upon the aertifioate of the 

chtirman of the Board of Insumnce Commissioners." 

An opinion was also rendered to the Comptroller of Public Accounts 04 

April 1, 1937, concerning ths Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission. The 

Commission had by resolution attempted to delegate rather broad functions to 

the Assistant Sxeautivc Director to execute purchase orders, approm expenditures, etc. The opinion pointed out that some of the things attempted to be 

'delegated wers ministerial and some required the exercise cd' discretion, end 

ruled that the latter could not be delagated to the Assistant Sxsoutivc Director* but that the Cmmiasion was required to exeroire the necensrry discretion. 
Hon. Lon Alsup, page 4 (O-5292) 

In Opinion No. O-1126 we had befc~e us the question of *ether the 

Texas Stats Parks Foard might delegate to its oecretary the right to approve claima against the Stat. appropriation for such board. The ruling 

was that such authority might not be delegated. An additional suggestion 

was made in the opinion that while the board might not delegate the authcrity to approve claims to a non-member of the board, it might delegate thie 

authority to some member of the board under rules and regulations to be 

promulgated by the board. Ia so far as said opinion expresses the oonolusion that the board may delegate itr discretionary authority to a member of 

the board, the sam8 is modified to conform to the views herein expressed, 

for, in our opinion, the principle of non-delegation of discretionary 

fun&ions is just as applicable to a member of a board or ootissicn as to 

a non-member. This authority is vested in t31e commission aa suoh and not 

in its members as individuals. 

Eased upon the~fcregoing authorities, we conclude that the State 

Conrmission for the Blind is the head of a deputmantvested with discrationay authority by statute, that it may delegate purely ministerial act8 

to be performed but may not delegate itr diaorationuy functions; and that 

the expenditure of moneys appropriated to it involves the sxeroise of 

disoretion or judgment. 

Fpom your question, we understand that the Commission desire* to 

make a general authorization for exponditure8, and delegate to one or more 

of its individual members, or to its executive secretary, authority to 

approve all expend.&turea for payment without the neaersity of further (ICtion by a majority of tha ConnnissionD In our opinion this cannot be done, 

and we therefore answer your question in the negative. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORliEYGENEFU,OFTEXAS 

By /a/ Cod1 C. Cammack 

Cecil C. Cammack 

Acsistmt 

CCCwslhnigw 

APPROTED Id&Y 26, 1943 

/s/Gerald C, &UI 

ATTORN'EYGEKERALOF TEXAS 

APPHOVED 

Opinion Committee 

ByBVfB 

Chairman