THEA'ITORNEY 

OF TEXAS 

GENERAL 

Autwrx~, TEKAS rerll 

The Honorable Alex W. Gabert 

County Attorney 

Starr County 

P. 0. Box 726 

Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 

Opinion No. H- 458 

Re: Conflicts of authority 

between a regional 

planning commission 

and the commissioners’ 

Dear Mr. Gabert: court. 

You have requested our opinion on the following questions: 

(1) What governmental body has the authority to select a county’s 

representatives to a regional planning commission? 

(2) Has the Commissioners Court of Starr County delegated its 

authority over “county business” by joining the regional planning commission? 

Pursuant to Article lOllm, section 3(a), V. T. C. S., “two or more general 

purpose governmental units may join in the exercise, performance, and cooperation of planning, powers, duties, and functions as provided by law for any or 

all such governmental units. ” Starr, Jim Hogg, Webb and Zapata counties 

have so joined and formed the South Texas Development Council, a Regional 

Planning Commission. While Article lOllm, does not establish a procedure 

whereby members are to be selected, section 5 of the Article allows “cooperating governmental units . . . through joint agreement [to] determine the 

number and qualifications of the governing body of the Commission.” However, 

the “governing body. . . shall consist of at least sixty-six and two-thirds 

percent (66 2/30/o) elected officials of general purpose governmental units. ” 

Article IOllm, $ 5, V. T. C. S. 

The Council has passed a set of by-laws which in part provide for the 

selection of its members. It is our understanding that the Commissioners 

Court of Starr County has never ratified these by-laws or any agreement 

concerning selection of county representatives of the Council. However, 

one of Starr County’s representatives to the Council, the .County Judge who 

is a member of the County Comm issioners Court, did vote to pass such bylaws. 

p. 2105 
The Honorable Alex W. Gabert, page 2 (H-458) 

The “joint agreement” contemplated by section 5 must be passed by 

the Commissioners Court of Starr County as “a cooperating governmental 

unit” for the county to be bound. Article 1011m. section 5, makes such 

an agreement county business over which the Commissioners Court alone 

has jurisdiction and power to bind the county. Tex. Const., art. 5, § 18. 

The fact that an individual member of the Court did agree to the bylaws is of no effect, since individual members of a county commissioners 

court have no authority to bind the county by their separate action. Canales 

v. Lauehlin, 214 S. W. 2d 451 (Tex. Sup. 1948); Rowan v. Pickett, 237 S. W. 2d 

734 (Tex. Civ. App. --San Antonio 1951, no writ). And since the Commissioners 

Court has the authority to agree to the number and qualification of the county’s 

representatives to the Council under section 5, it is our opinion that the 

power to select those representatives rests with the Court until a joint agreement is executed. 

Your second question asks whether the Commissioners Court has delegated its authority over “county business ” by joining the regional planning 

commission. A commissioners court may not delegate powers involving 

the exercise of judgment unless the court is statutorily enabled to do so. 

Guerra v. Rodriguez, 239 S. W. 2d 915 (Tex. Civ.App. --San Antonio 1951, no 

writ); Attorney General Opinion V-532 (1948). 

In this instance it is our opinion that the Court is not delegating any 

of its authority over county business by joining the Commission. Section 3(a) 

of Article 1Ollm provides that “nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

limit the powers of the participating governmental units as provided by 

existing law. ” Section 4(b) designates the purposes of a regional planning 

commission as those of making “studies and plans, ” the latter of which 

‘fnav be adopted in whole or in part by the respective governing bodies of the 

cooperating governmental units. I’ (Emphasis added) The statute in no way 

authorizes any delegation of county business except with respect to the 

formulation of studies and plans. 

SUMMARY 

Until the Commissioner’s Court of Starr County 

enters a “joint agreement” concerning the selection 

of representatives to the South Texas Development 

p. 2106 
The Honorable Alex W. Gabert, page 3 (H-458) 

Council, the Court retains the power to select such 

representatives. 

The Commissioners Court of Starr County has 

not delegated its authority over “county business” 

by joining the Council. 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney Geaeral of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2107