Court Opinion

ID: 9643784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:40:34.524338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:03.769457
License: Public Domain

*580On Motion For Rehearing
On appellants’ motion for rehearing it has been pointed out that the opinion of this court is at variance with certain portions of the trial court’s judgment and that we failed to determine whether the county auditor’s budget required the approval of the district judges.
A portion of the trial court’s judgment granting declaratory relief, states at Section (a):
. . and that the Commissioners Court has no power or authority . to revise or to veto the District Judges’ approval of such equipment budget absent an abuse of discretion by the County Auditor; AND IT IS SO DECLARED;”
Section (b) states:
“That when the County Auditor, acting within the scope of his equipment budget approved by the District Judges, determines that an item or items of equipment or of associated services is necessary for the proper functioning of the County Auditor’s office, the Commissioners Court has a ministerial duty to follow the lawful procedures to acquire such item or items at county expense absent an abuse of discretion by the County Auditor; AND IT IS SO DECLARED;”
It is undisputed that the controversial budget made the basis of this lawsuit was in fact approved by the Board of District Judges. The testimony of the county auditor shows that he annually submits his budget to the district judges for their inspection and approval as an established administrative practice. Since the county auditor and his assistants and their salaries are subject to the approval of the district judges, it is inescapable that the district judges must carefully review the county auditor’s budget before they are able to intelligently exercise their duties imposed by article 1650.
However, we find no statutory authority requiring the district judges’ approval of the county auditor’s budget or granting the district judges any authority over his equipment budget. The county auditor does not claim this authorization by article 1650.
Therefore, we hold that the approval of the county auditor’s budget by the district judges is not required.
To the extent that the trial court’s judgment holds that commissioners court has no power or authority to revise or veto the district judges’ approval of such equipment budget absent an abuse of discretion by the county auditor, as set out in Section (a) above, such judgment is modified to declare that when the county auditor presents his budget to commissioners court enumerating equipment which he deems necessary for the operation of his office, the commissioners court has the power and authority to review and reject his budget only to the extent that the specific cost of an enumerated item is excessive or unreasonable in its monetary demands upon county funds, available or to become available, subject to any abuse of discretion. The judgment is also modified to the extent that neither Section (b) quoted above, nor any other provisions of the judgment shall require the county auditor’s budget to be approved by the district judges.
With these modifications, the judgment in all other particulars is affirmed.
COLEMAN, C. J., and WALLACE, J., also sitting.