Can a Texas county juvenile probation board enter contracts and spend money without the commissioners court's approval?

TX AG Opinion DM-0460: Can a county juvenile probation board contract and spend without the commissioners court?

Plain-English summary

The El Paso County Attorney asked the Attorney General several questions about how much independence the county's juvenile probation board had from the commissioners court. Could the board, acting for the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department, sign contracts on its own? Was the county on the hook for those contracts? Could the board contract with school districts for alternative education programs? And could the board direct the county auditor to pay state or county funds without the commissioners court approving each payment?

The Attorney General started with the underlying question of liability, because answering it required looking at the whole statutory scheme. Drawing on the Texas Supreme Court's test in Lohec v. Galveston County Comm'rs Court (look at sources of funding, accountability, and supervision), he concluded that the juvenile department was an entity separate and distinct from the county. The board, not the commissioners court, created the department, hired its personnel, and set their salaries; department employees counted as state employees for liability purposes; the department's budget was largely insulated from commissioners court review; and the board could enter several kinds of contracts with no mention of county oversight. Because the department was its own entity, a contract the board signed for it would bind the department, not the county, and generally would not impose liability on the county.

From there the rest followed. Since no statute required the commissioners court to approve the board's contracts, and the department was not part of the county, the board could enter authorized contracts on its own. That included contracts with school districts to provide juvenile justice alternative education programs (JJAEPs) under Education Code section 37.011(e), which a county over 125,000 people was required to develop. Finally, Local Government Code section 140.003 made a juvenile board a "specialized local entity" whose funds the county must hold and disburse "as the entity directs." Reading that language together with the statute giving the county treasurer the duty to disburse county funds, the Attorney General concluded the board could direct the county auditor or treasurer to expend state and county funds without the commissioners court reviewing or approving each expenditure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The Human Resources Code, Local Government Code, and Education Code provisions this opinion construed have all been amended since 1997, and the juvenile justice statutes in particular were substantially reorganized in the years after. Confirm the current statutes before relying on any specific rule here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1997)

Juvenile probation boards: The opinion treated the board as the governing body of a separate local entity. It held the board could enter authorized contracts and direct expenditure of the department's funds without first clearing those actions through the commissioners court.

Commissioners courts: The opinion held the commissioners court's role over the juvenile department was limited. The court could not review the state-funded part of the department's budget at all, could review the county-funded part only for abuse of discretion, and set the total dollar amount of county funds, but it did not approve the board's individual contracts or expenditures.

County auditors and treasurers: The opinion concluded the officer charged with disbursing county funds could pay the board's claims on the board's direction, without separate commissioners court approval of each payment.

School districts: The opinion noted a board in a county over 125,000 was required to develop a JJAEP and could contract with school districts for those programs under Education Code section 37.011(e) without commissioners court approval.

Common questions

Was the county liable for contracts the juvenile board signed?
Generally no, under this opinion. The Attorney General concluded the juvenile department was a separate entity from the county, so a contract the board entered for the department bound the department, not the county. He noted he could not address whether the particular circumstances of a specific contract might justify imposing liability on the county.

Did the board need the commissioners court to approve its contracts?
No. The opinion found no statute requiring commissioners court approval of the board's contracts and no basis for implying one, since the department was not part of the county. It added the usual caveat that a particular contract's subject or circumstances might require approval.

Could the board contract with school districts for alternative education programs on its own?
Yes. The opinion concluded the board could contract with school districts for juvenile justice alternative education programs under Education Code section 37.011(e) without commissioners court approval, and noted it is the board, not the department, that section 37.011 authorizes to make those contracts.

Could the board spend funds without the commissioners court signing off on each payment?
Yes. Reading Local Government Code section 140.003, the opinion concluded the board, as a specialized local entity, could direct the county officer in charge of disbursing funds to pay its claims without the commissioners court reviewing or approving each expenditure.

Background and statutory framework

A juvenile board is responsible for providing juvenile probation services in one or more counties and for employing the probation officers who deliver them. The El Paso board was created by section 152.0771 of the Human Resources Code and was composed of the county judge, the family district court judges, the juvenile court judge, and up to five council-of-judges members. Under sections 142.001 and 152.0007, the board provided probation services in response to and under the direction of juvenile court orders, subject to the standards of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. The board hired the department's personnel and set their salaries (sections 142.002 and 152.0007(a)), and Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982) had construed a predecessor statute to allow the board to set salaries subject only to commissioners court review for abuse of discretion. Department employees were treated as state employees for governmental-liability purposes under chapter 104 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Human Resources Code section 142.004(b)).

The department was funded with both county and state money, but the commissioners court's authority over the budget was limited. Section 152.0012 barred the commissioners court from reviewing any part of the budget derived from state funds and limited its review of the county-funded part to approving the budget unless the court could show the board had abused its discretion. Under newer legislation codified at Local Government Code section 111.094, the county determined only the total dollar amount of county funds for the department, not the particular purposes or amounts of expenditures.

To decide whether the department was a separate entity, the opinion applied the Texas Supreme Court's test from Lohec v. Galveston County Comm'rs Court, 841 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. 1992): sources of funding, accountability, and supervision are important considerations in determining the nature of an entity. Weighing those factors (the board created the department, hired and paid its staff without commissioners court supervision, the budget was largely insulated from county review, and the board could contract for various purposes with no provision for county oversight), the opinion concluded the department was independent of the county. It distinguished Lohec, where the Galveston County beach park board had numerous county characteristics that made it a county entity. Because the department was separate, a contract the board signed for it would not, as a general matter, impose liability on the county (citing Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084 (Tex. 1941), for the rule that a commissioners court is normally the only body authorized to execute county contracts unless a statute provides otherwise).

On expenditures, section 140.003 of the Local Government Code defined a juvenile board as a "specialized local entity," required it to deposit its funds in the county treasury, and provided that the county "shall hold, deposit, disburse, invest, and otherwise care for the funds . . . as the entity directs." Giving that language its ordinary meaning (Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. 1997)), the opinion read it to let the board direct expenditure of its funds, with the county treasurer or other disbursing officer carrying out that direction. Section 115.021, which requires the commissioners court to audit and settle "all accounts against the county," did not apply, because the board's payment requests were not accounts against the county. The opinion harmonized this result with the board's budgetary independence and with its earlier opinions DM-247 (1993) and DM-257 (1993), which addressed county accounting procedures for deposited funds but did not require commissioners court approval of disbursements.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Hum. Res. Code §§ 142.001, 142.002, 142.003(b), 142.004(b), 141.042, 141.081, 141.082, 141.084, 141.067, 141.0432, 152.0004, 152.0007, 152.0010(a), 152.0011, 152.0012, 152.0771
• Tex. Local Gov't Code §§ 111.094, 115.021, 140.003, 140.004
• Tex. Educ. Code §§ 37.011, 37.013
• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 104

Cases:

• Lohec v. Galveston County Comm'rs Court, 841 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. 1992)
• Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. 1997)
• Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084 (Tex. 1941)

Related opinions:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. MW-587 (1982); DM-247 (1993); DM-257 (1993)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0460
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1997/dm0460.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

DAN MORALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL

December 17, 1997

The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez
El Paso County Attorney
County Courthouse
500 E. San Antonio, Room 203
El Paso, Texas 79901

Opinion No. DM-460

Re: Authority of the El Paso County Juvenile Probation Board to enter into contracts or authorize expenditures without the commissioners court's approval (RQ-939)

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:

You ask several questions relating to the authority of the El Paso County Juvenile Probation Board (the "board") to enter into contracts or authorize expenditures for the El Paso Juvenile Department (the "department") without approval of the Commissioners Court (the "commissioners court") of El Paso County (the "county"). A juvenile board is generally responsible for providing juvenile probation services in one or more counties and employing juvenile probation officers and personnel to provide these services. The composition and powers of any particular juvenile board are determined by the general statute providing for juvenile boards in all counties and by any special statute applicable to that county. Juvenile probation departments are established and operated under the auspices of the juvenile board in conjunction with the rules and regulations adopted by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (the "commission").

Before turning to your specific questions, we look at the statutes pursuant to which the board and the department were created and operate. The board was created by section 152.0771 of the Human Resources Code and is composed of the county judge, each family district court judge, each juvenile court judge, and up to five judges on the El Paso Council of Judges elected by a majority vote of the council. The board is charged with providing juvenile probation services in the county in response to orders issued by and under the direction of the juvenile court. Hum. Res. Code §§ 142.001, 152.0007(a). Commission rules and regulations govern the board's minimum standards for personnel, staffing, programs, record keeping, and other aspects of the board's operations necessary to provide juvenile probation services. Id. §§ 141.042, 152.0007.

The board hires department personnel, including the chief probation officer and any assistants. Id. §§ 142.002, 152.0007(a). The board sets department employee salaries. Id. § 142.002(b); Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982) (construing predecessor to section 142.002(b) to allow juvenile board to set salaries subject to commissioners court's review only for abuse of discretion). The commissioners court is required to pay the salaries of juvenile probation personnel and other expenses certified as necessary by the juvenile board chairman. Hum. Res. Code § 152.0004; Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982); but see Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1197, § 9, 1997 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4611, 4613 (codified at Local Gov't Code § 111.094). Juvenile probation personnel are considered state employees and not county employees for the purposes of governmental liability under chapter 104 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Hum. Res. Code § 142.004(b).

The department is funded with both county and state funds. Id. §§ 141.081, .084, 152.0004, .0005, .0012; see Local Gov't Code § 111.094. Although the board is required to submit the department's budget to the commissioners court, the latter's authority over the budget is limited. Hum. Res. Code §§ 142.002, 152.0007, .0012; Local Gov't Code § 111.094. A commissioners court has no authority to consider or review the portion of the department budget funded with state funds. Hum. Res. Code § 152.0012. With respect to the items funded by the county, the commissioners court's authority has been limited to approving and funding the budget unless the commissioners court can show that the board has abused its discretion. Id. But under recent legislation, the county determines the "amount of county funds to be spent for the juvenile department in the county budget." See Local Gov't Code § 111.094. Under this provision, however, the county may only determine the total dollar amount of county funds allocated to the department. It may not determine the particular purposes or amounts of any expenditures from these or any other funds the department receives.

The department is a "specialized local entity" under section 140.003 of the Local Government Code, that is required to deposit funds it receives in the county treasury, Local Gov't Code § 140.003(a), (f), and is also subject to the purchasing requirements applicable to the county under subchapter C of chapter 262 of the Local Government Code, id. § 140.003(b).

Finally, the board is expressly authorized to contract with the Texas Youth Commission for juvenile probation services, Hum. Res. Code § 142.003(b), and to provide services to persons who violate parole, id. §§ 141.0432(d), (e), 142.003(b). The board or the department is additionally authorized to contract with a private vendor for the financing, construction, operation, maintenance, or management of a youth boot camp, and may also contract with other local juvenile boards and departments to establish joint regional boot camps. Id. § 152.0011.

We start by addressing your third question since it requires us to examine the relevant statutory framework in its entirety. You ask if "the County is generally liable for contracts entered into by the Juvenile Probation Department or is such liability limited to the funds received by the juvenile probation department as a specialized local entity?" You do not indicate in your letter the particular type or subject of the contract at issue. Therefore, our answer to your question must necessarily be general in scope.

No provision conclusively indicates whether the department is a separate and autonomous entity or a part of the county. Consequently, we examine the characteristics of the department to make this determination. As stated by the Texas Supreme Court, "[c]ommon sense dictates that important considerations in determining the nature [of an entity], include, among other things, sources of funding, accountability and supervision." Lohec v. Galveston County Comm'rs Court, 841 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. 1992).

The department at issue is established by the board. See Hum. Res. Code § 152.0007(a). The purpose of the department, the provision of juvenile probation services, is not merely a county concern, but a state-wide one, provided in response to and under the direction of juvenile court orders and governed by state regulations. See id. §§ 142.001, 141.042, 152.0007. The commissioners court has no authority with respect to the creation and composition of the board since the board is a statutorily created entity comprised of the members designated by the statute. See id. § 152.0771. The board hires department personnel and sets their salaries, without commissioners court supervision. Id. §§ 142.002(b), 152.0007(a). Department employees are considered state employees for the purposes of state liability and indemnification for acts of negligence and criminal prosecution. Id. § 142.002(b). Although the department's budget comprises county funds as well as state funds, the commissioners court has limited control over even the county funded portion. Id. §§ 142.002(b), 152.0004, 152.0012. The board or the department is specifically empowered, without any express provision for county oversight, to enter into certain contracts. Id. §§ 141.0432(d), (e), 142.003(b), 152.0011. All of these factors indicate that the department is an entity independent of the county. We note that the department is made subject to some county supervision in the deposit and disbursement of department funds. See Local Gov't Code § 140.003. We do not believe this requirement indicates that the department is part of the county but, in fact, indicates that the department is distinct from the county. If the department was merely a part of the county, there would be no need to require the deposit of department funds in the county treasury and disbursement by the county. Similarly, the fact that the department is made subject to the county purchasing requirements also supports the distinction between the county and the department. Therefore, it is our view that the department is an entity separate and distinct from the county. Thus, any contract entered into by the department would be binding only on the department. Accordingly, a contract entered into by the department would not, as a general matter, impose any liability on the county. We cannot and do not address whether the circumstances involved in a particular contract entered into by the department may justify the imposition of liability on the county.

We turn now to your first question. You ask if "the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department, acting through the El Paso Juvenile Probation Board, may validly enter into contracts independent of [the] Commissioners Court['s] approval?" Again you do not indicate in your letter the particular type or circumstances of the contract at issue. Therefore, our answer to your question must necessarily be general in scope.

As noted in our discussion above, no provision expressly subjects board or department contracts to commissioners court's approval. There are on the other hand, as you point out, express provisions authorizing the board or the department to contract for particular purposes that do not reference commissioners court's approval. It is our view that if the legislature had intended that the commissioners court's approval be obtained in other circumstances, the legislature would have so provided. Furthermore, we see no basis for implying such an approval requirement since, in our view, the department is not a part of the county. We conclude that as a general rule and in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the board may enter into contracts without commissioners court's approval. We cannot and do not, of course, address whether the subject or circumstances of a particular contract may require that the commissioners court's approval be obtained.

You next question if "the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department, acting through the El Paso Juvenile Probation Board, may validly enter into contracts with school districts to provide juvenile justice alternative education programs as required by Texas Educ. Code Ann. § 37.011 (Vernon Supp. 1996), independent of [the] Commissioners Court['s] approval?"

A juvenile board in a county with population in excess of 125,000 is required to develop a juvenile justice alternative program (JJAEP), see Educ. Code §§ 37.011 - .013, and to provide educational services to certain students, see id. § 37.011(b). In accordance with this mandate, a juvenile board may provide the JJAEP in facilities owned by the school district and "[a] school district may provide personnel and services for a juvenile justice alternative education program under a contract with the juvenile board." Id. § 37.011(e) (emphasis added). Neither section 37.011(e) nor another provision requires that the commissioners court approve a contract under this section. You inform us that the population of the county exceeds 125,000. Thus, the board is required to develop a JJAEP program and may enter into contracts with a school district under section 37.011(e) of the Education Code. We note, however, that it is the board, not the department, that is authorized to enter into a contract with a school district under section 37.011. Accordingly we conclude that the board may enter into contracts with school districts as permitted by section 37.011 of the Education Code without the approval of the commissioners court.

You ask in your fourth question whether "the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department, acting through the El Paso Juvenile Probation Board, may validly authorize the County Auditor to expend state or county funds independent of review and approval by the Commissioners Court?" You provide the following background information with respect to this question: The department is responsible for juveniles' post-adjudication placement and associated travel costs as ordered by the juvenile court. The department pays for the placement and travel costs from a variety of funds, including state and county funds. Timely transportation of a juvenile from the detention facility to a Texas Youth Commission facility is desirable for various reasons. Under "normal" procedures, a request for payment for the transportation costs would be submitted to the county auditor who in turn would place the request as an item on the commissioners court's agenda for approval pursuant to Local Government Code section 115.021. This is problematic because there is a delay of one or two weeks from the date of the juvenile court placement order to the date the request for payment can be considered by the commissioners court.

You state in your letter that it has been suggested that commissioners court's approval is not required because the board as a "specialized local entity" under section 140.003 of the Local Government Code is authorized to direct payment from either the state or county funded portion of its budget, and the auditor may issue such payments without additional approval by the commissioners court. We agree.

Section 140.003 provides in part:

(a) In this section, "specialized local entity" means:

(1) a district or criminal district attorney;

(2) a juvenile board, juvenile probation office, or juvenile department established for one or more counties; or

(3) an adult probation office or department established for a judicial district.

(b) A specialized local entity shall purchase items in accordance with the same procedures and subject to the same requirements applicable to a county under Subchapter C, Chapter 262. For the purposes of this section, a specialized local entity is treated as if it were a county. A specialized local entity may make a contract with a county under which the county performs purchasing functions for the entity.

. . . .

(f) Each specialized local entity shall deposit in the county treasury of the county in which the entity has jurisdiction the funds the entity receives. The county shall hold, deposit, disburse, invest, and otherwise care for the funds on behalf of the specialized local entity as the entity directs.

(g) The county auditor, if any, of the county that manages a specialized local entity's funds has the same authority to audit the funds of the entity that the auditor has with regard to county funds.

Local Gov't Code § 140.003 (footnote deleted) (emphasis added). Under section 140.003, a juvenile board or department, as a specialized local entity, must deposit funds it receives in the county treasury, which means depositing with the county treasurer or other county official for placement in the county depository. Attorney General Opinion DM-257 (1993) at 4. But subsection (f) also states that the "county shall . . . disburse . . . the funds . . . as the entity directs." If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must give the statute its common everyday meaning. Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 80 (Tex. 1997). The statute's ordinary meaning allows the juvenile board or department to direct expenditure of the funds at issue.

We next look at who must act to disburse the deposited funds in response to the juvenile board's or department's direction. Subsection (f) states that the county shall disburse the funds. The term "county" as used in this context can reasonably refer only to the county treasurer or other county officer in charge of disbursing county funds. See Local Gov't Code §§ 113.001 - .003, .041 (designating county treasurer chief custodian of and requiring such officer to disburse all county funds); Agan, 940 S.W.2d at 80, 82 (legislature has given county treasurer exclusive power to disburse county funds). Accordingly, the juvenile board or department may direct the county treasurer or an appropriate county officer to disburse its funds.

No provision in Local Government Code section 140.003 expressly requires the commissioners court to review or approve expenditure of the juvenile board or department funds on deposit in the county treasury. Nor is there any basis for implying such a requirement. The legislative history of section 140.003 indicates that the legislature intended local entities, including the juvenile board or department, to be accountable for their funds in the same manner as county commissioners courts are for county funds. Accordingly, a juvenile board or department under the statute must comply with the competitive bidding procedures and other requirements of subchapter C of chapter 262 of the Local Government Code applicable to a county, see Local Gov't Code § 140.003(b); and must deposit its funds in the county treasury, id. § 140.003(f). Lastly, the board or department funds are subject to audit by the county auditor to the same extent county funds are, id. § 140.003(g). Consequently, such local entities were placed in the same position as, not made accountable to, the commissioners court for expenditure of funds.

We next examine section 115.021 of the Local Government Code to determine if the commissioners court must approve juvenile board or department expenditures. This section provides as follows: "The commissioners court of a county shall audit and settle all accounts against the county and shall direct the payment of those accounts." By its terms, this section does not apply to the board's payment requests since they do not relate to "accounts against the county." You suggest, however, that section 115.021 is nevertheless applicable to juvenile board or department expenditures by incorporation in section 140.003(f). Based on our discussion of subsection (f) above, we find no support for such an interpretation in either the language or legislative history of the statute.

We also believe a requirement that the commissioners court review and approve juvenile board or department expenditures is contrary to the board's budgetary and financial independence. As stated previously, section 152.0012 expressly precludes the commissioners court from any review or consideration of a board's budget derived from state funds. Furthermore, the county commissioners' authority even over the portion of the board's budget derived from county funds is limited to approving the budget unless the commissioners court can show that the board has abused its discretion and to determining the total dollar amount allocated to the department. See supra discussion at 4-5. We have also seen that the board does not require commissioners court's approval to execute contracts and, thereby, incur liabilities. See supra discussion at 9-10. If a board's budget and its ability to incur liability is not subject to commissioners court's review and approval, it would be inconsistent to require disbursements to pay the board's claims to such review and approval.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the board, on behalf of the department, may authorize the county auditor to expend state or county funds independent of the commissioners court's review and approval.

SUMMARY

The El Paso County Juvenile Department is an entity separate and distinct from the County of El Paso. Thus, any contract entered into by the El Paso County Juvenile Probation Board on behalf of the department would not, as a general matter, impose any liability on the county. As a general rule and in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the board may enter into authorized contracts without the approval of the county commissioners court. The board may enter into contracts with school districts for provision of juvenile justice alternative education programs as permitted by section 37.011(e) of the Education Code without the county commissioners court's approval. The board may authorize expenditure of state aid and county funds independent of the commissioners court's review and approval.

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sheela Rai
Assistant Attorney General

Footnotes

1. Juvenile probation services are "services provided by or under the direction of a juvenile probation officer in response to an order issued by a juvenile court and under the court's direction[,]" or services provided by a juvenile probation department in relation to the operation of a juvenile detention facility. Hum. Res. Code § 142.001.

2. See Hum. Res. Code § 152.0007; 36 David B. Brooks, County and Special District Law § 24.3 (Texas Practice 1989).

3. 36 David B. Brooks, County and Special District Law § 24.3 (Texas Practice 1989).

4. Id. § 24.4.

5. Other statutes applicable to the board include the general provisions in subchapter A of chapter 152. See Hum. Res. Code §§ 152.0001, .0031 (stating application of subchapters A and B of chapter 152), .0051 - .0055 (subchapter C, limited to counties with family district court), .0071 - .2571 (subchapter D, provisions applicable to specific counties). Additionally, chapter 142 of the Human Resources Code includes provisions generally applicable to a juvenile board and juvenile probation department as does chapter 141, dealing with the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission and the statewide administration and coordination of juvenile probation services.

6. Each juvenile board is required to appoint an advisory council composed of not more than nine citizens, including a prosecuting attorney, a mental health professional, a medical health professional, and a representative of the education community. See Hum. Res. Code § 152.0010(a).

7. But see id. § 141.067 (juvenile probation officer whose jurisdiction covers only one county considered county employee).

8. The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission is required to allocate annually state funds for financial assistance to juvenile boards to provide juvenile probation services. Id. § 141.081. The commission grants the "state aid" to juvenile boards that comply with the commission's standards for aid. Id. §§ 141.082, .084.

9. See Local Gov't Code § 140.004; Hum. Res. Code § 152.0012.

10. See State Bar of Texas, Section Report, Juvenile Law 9 (Special Legislative Issue 1995) (commissioners court has limited review and must approve budget unless it can show abuse of discretion, citing Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982)); Robert O. Dawson, Tex. Juvenile Probation Comm'n, An Analysis of Juvenile Statutory and Case Law for Texas Juvenile Justice Officials (Texas Juvenile Law 4th ed. 1996); see also Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982) (commissioners court must budget and approve salaries set by juvenile board); infra note 11.

11. Section 152.0012 of the Human Resources Code, enacted in 1995, provides the following: "The juvenile board shall prepare a budget for the juvenile probation department and the other facilities and programs under the jurisdiction of the juvenile board. The commissioners court shall review and adopt the amount of county funds derived from county taxes, fees, and other county sources in the budget. The commissioners court may not review any part of the budget derived from state funds." By the terms of the statute, commissioners court's review is restricted to the part of the budget derived from county funds. With respect to that part, Representative Goodman, author of the legislation, has stated that the purpose was to allow the commissioners court to review the budget in order to adequately prepare for the level of county funding that will be necessary; it was not to give veto power over the budget. Debate on H.B. 327 on the Floor of the House, 74th Leg., R.S. (May 25, 1995) (transcript available from House Video/Audio Services Office).

12. See Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1197, § 9, 1997 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4611, 4613 (codified at Local Gov't Code § 111.094). Senator Jon Lindsay, who proposed the conference committee language of section 111.094 adopted by the house and senate, explained the legislation as follows: "Nothing in this bill points out . . . how those courts [juvenile courts] or how the juvenile board is to operate. Nothing. It's only a dollar amount that goes to them. Everything else is set by the juvenile board. . . . Well, they [the juvenile boards] still have authority to do, to set the line items within their budget all the way. We have, and that's local money, state money, and any federal grants they might get." Debate on S.B. 1395 on the Floor of the Senate, 75th Leg. (June 1, 1997) (tape available from Senate Staff Services).

13. See Act of May 30, 1981, 67th Leg., R.S., ch. 617, § 1, 1981 Tex. Gen. Laws 2419, 2419 (amending predecessor to chapter 141 of the Human Resources Code to make probation services available throughout the state for juveniles).

14. See Lohec, 841 S.W.2d at 365.

15. But see supra note 7.

16. Compare Lohec holding that the Galveston County Beach Park Board, in its "county creation, composition, and concern solely with [county] problems" had numerous characteristics of a county entity and was therefore subject to certain statutes governing counties. Lohec, 841 S.W.2d at 365. The court reached this conclusion based on a number of statutory factors: the beach park board was created at the initiation of the commissioners court for the purposes of maintaining and operating county parks; members of the county beach park board, including one member of the commissioners court, are appointed by the commissioners court and any vacancy is filled by the commissioners court; members are required to file a bond with the county clerk payable to the county and approved by the commissioners court; a county beach park board can use the services of the county attorney; county beach board funds are deposited and secured in the same manner as county funds; a county beach park board may contract with the county to keep and maintain its records, and records of the county beach park board are subject to the inspection of the commissioners court. Id. at 363-65. Additionally, the county beach park board of trustees' budget was funded largely by the county and the county commissioners court approved the board's annual budget, hiring and promotions. Id.

17. Your question suggests that county liability may result from merely the use of county funds for the payment of a contract or approval of the contract by the commissioners court. We find no basis for imposition of such liability.

18. If the department were a part of the county, the commissioners court would, of course, have to approve and execute department contracts. See Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1941); 35 David B. Brooks, County and Special District Law § 5.13 (Texas Practice 1989) (county commissioners court only body authorized to execute contracts binding on county unless statute specifically provides otherwise).

19. See Hum. Res. Code §§ 141.0432(d), (e), 142.003(b) (contracts with Texas Youth Commission for juvenile probation services); id. § 152.0011 (contracts with private vendor for the financing, construction, operation, maintenance, or management of youth boot camp and with other juvenile boards or departments to jointly establish regional boot camps).

20. Your request letter refers to section 37.001. We assume, however, that you intended to reference section 37.011 of the Education Code since (i) your letter brief discusses that section and (ii) section 37.001 requires each school district, and "jointly as appropriate," with the juvenile board of each county in which the school district is located, to adopt a "student code of conduct."

21. See id. (concluding that a juvenile board is authorized to provide educational services to students not required to attend juvenile justice alternative education program by juvenile court order).

22. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 44(b), (c) and (d) (abolishing office of county treasurer in certain counties subject to voter approval and providing for transfer of duties to other county officer or persons).

23. The senate sponsor of the bill enacting section 140.003 explained the legislative intent as follows: "[T]he bill provides some tightening of the accounting and handling of certain specialized funds that exist in our counties. The district attorney's funds, the juvenile board, probation department, these people all have fee incomes that go into funds, and they are not required under existing law to comply with the competitive bidding statutes, to comply with the same kind of accountability that is applied to the county treasury and the county commissioners. And this simply places some accounting and purchasing responsibilities to get a little bit of accountability into those public funds." Attorney General Opinion DM-247 (1993) (citing Hearings on C.S.H.B. 1434 Before the Senate Intergovernmental Relations Comm., 71st Leg. (May 25, 1989)) (emphasis added) (statement of Senator Parmer) (transcript available from Senate Staff Services Office).

24. Nor do we believe that such an interpretation is supported by Attorney General Opinions DM-247 and DM-257. Both of these opinions dealt with county accounting procedures applicable to disbursement of funds deposited in the county treasury. Neither considered whether any disbursements required county commissioners court's review or approval of disbursements. In Attorney General Opinion DM-247, this office determined that article 59.06 of the Code of Criminal Procedure granted spending authority and discretion to law enforcement agencies over forfeited funds deposited in the county treasury. Thus, such agencies were not subject to the conflicting requirements that disbursements be made by the county treasurer, that all checks and warrants be countersigned by the county auditor, that all payments be approved by the county auditor, and that the "county . . . disburse . . . the funds on behalf of the specialized local entity[,]" under Local Government Code section 140.003(f). Attorney General Opinion DM-247 (1993) at 5, 6. However the auditor's record-keeping requirements did not conflict with article 59.06(d) and, therefore, applied to the forfeited funds. Id. at 7-8. In Attorney General Opinion DM-257, this office concluded that Local Government Code section 140.003(f) incorporated the county auditor's budgetary oversight of the warrant process and prohibition on payment of checks or warrants not countersigned by the county auditor. Attorney General Opinion DM-257 (1993) at 5.

25. We assume the office of the county treasurer in El Paso County has been abolished and the commissioners court has designated the county auditor to perform the county treasurer's functions. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 44(d) (abolishing office of county treasurer in El Paso county if approved by voters and providing that commissioners court may designate another county officer to perform county treasurer functions).

26. Given our conclusion, we do not address your fifth question "if [the] Commissioners Court['s] approval is required to authorize expenditure of state or county funds, may the Commissioners Court pre-approve payment for specifically defined claims within a set dollar limit?"