Was the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission allowed to require juvenile probation officer salary scales to be at least as high as adult probation officer salary scales?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-144: Juvenile Probation Officer Salary Standard
Plain-English summary
JM-144 concluded that a Texas Juvenile Probation Commission standard requiring juvenile probation officer salary scales to be no lower than adult probation officer salary scales violated neither Texas statutes nor the Texas Constitution.
"Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard section 341.4(d), which requires that juvenile probation officers not be paid less than adult probation officers in the county or district, violates neither Texas statutes nor the Texas Constitution."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Article 5138d authorized juvenile boards, with the advice and consent of commissioners courts, to set salaries according to commission standards and local needs. The opinion read this arrangement as consultation rather than a commissioners court veto, absent a clear abuse of discretion.
"The controlling statute, article 5138d, provides for consultation with the commissioners court by the juvenile board in fixing the salaries of juvenile probation officers, but it does not authorize the commissioners court to reject the compensation set by the juvenile board in accordance with standards established by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, unless there is clear abuse of discretion."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. 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.
Common questions
What did the salary standard require?
It required reasonable salary levels comparable to prevailing public- and private-sector salaries in the county or district, and it set adult probation officer salaries as the floor for the juvenile probation officer scale.
"[The] juvenile board shall ensure that all salary levels of juvenile probation department personnel are reasonable and comparable with prevailing salaries of the public and private sectors, in the respective county or district, but in no case will the salary scale for juvenile probation officers be less than the salary scale for adult probation officers."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
What authority did article 5138d give juvenile boards?
It allowed them, with commissioners-court advice and consent, to employ personnel, designate titles, and set salaries according to statewide standards and local needs.
"[T]he juvenile board . . . may, with the advice and consent of the commissioners court, employ and designate the titles and fix the salaries of probation officers . . . according to the standards established by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission and the needs of the local jurisdiction as determined by the juvenile board."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
What happened to conflicting older salary statutes?
The opinion said article 5138d impliedly repealed earlier provisions to the extent of conflict and expressly displaced inconsistent salary determinations.
"The enactment of article 5138d in 1981 impliedly repealed those prior statutes to the extent of conflict."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf"Also, in Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982), this office determined that article 5138d expressly overrules salary determinations made under those prior statutes, and we agree with that conclusion."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Could the Juvenile Probation Commission adopt personnel standards?
Yes. Section 75.041 directed it to issue reasonable rules establishing minimum standards for personnel and other elements of effective probation services.
"Section 75.041 of the Texas Human Resources Code directs the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to promulgate reasonable rules for juvenile boards establishing minimum standards for personnel, staffing, case loads, programs, facilities, record keeping, equipment, and other aspects of the operation of a juvenile board necessary for the provision of adequate and effective probation services."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Did the Constitution reserve all county salary decisions to commissioners courts?
No. The opinion said the Constitution did not prevent the Legislature from assigning county business to another agency.
"Neither article V, section 18, nor any other provision of the constitution, precludes the legislature from committing any county business to some other agency."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Was delegating salary-setting power constitutional?
Yes. Article III, section 44 placed the duty to provide for public compensation on the Legislature, but allowed it to empower other authorities to determine exact salaries under workable guidelines.
"The duty of providing for compensation by law rests solely with the legislature, but section 44 does not prevent the legislature from empowering other authorities to determine salaries, as long as it provides guidelines capable of reasonable application."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf"The fixing of the exact sum of compensation is a constitutionally delegable right."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Background and legal framework
The Legislature enacted Human Resources Code chapter 75 and article 5138d together in 1981 to improve juvenile probation services through state financial aid and uniform administration standards.
"In 1981, the Texas Legislature enacted chapter 75 of the Texas Human Resources Code and article 5138d, V.T.C.S., in the same bill to improve the juvenile justice system by improving the effectiveness of probation services, providing financial aid from the state to juvenile boards for probation services, and establishing uniform probation administration standards."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
The opinion treated the challenged salary floor as one of the standards contemplated by that legislation.
"The provision in standard section 341.4(d) requiring juvenile probation officers to be paid not less than adult probation officers is such a 'standard established by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Holding
"Accordingly, we conclude that Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard, section 341.4(d) is authorized by Texas statutes."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf"Therefore, we believe the statutes authorizing the promulgation of Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard section 341.4(d) are a constitutional delegation of authority by the legislature."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0144
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0144.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
April 11, 1984
Honorable Jim Bob Darnell
Criminal District Attorney
2nd Floor
Lubbock County Courthouse
P. O. Box 10536
Lubbock, Texas 79408
Opinion No. JM-144
Re: Whether a rule of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission violates the Texas Constitution or statutes
Dear Mr. Darnell:
You have asked whether the
Texas Juvenile Probation Commission standard section 341.4(d), which requires juvenile probation officers to be paid not less than adult probation officers in the county or district, violates either the Texas statutes or constitution.
Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard section 341.4(d) provides, in pertinent part, that
[the] juvenile board shall ensure that all salary levels of juvenile probation department personnel are reasonable and comparable with prevailing salaries of the public and private sectors, in the respective county or district, but in no case will the salary scale for juvenile probation officers be less than the salary scale for adult probation officers.
In 1981, the Texas Legislature enacted chapter 75 of the Texas Human Resources Code and article 5138d, V.T.C.S., in the same bill to improve the juvenile justice system by improving the effectiveness of probation services, providing financial aid from the state to juvenile boards for probation services, and establishing uniform probation administration standards. See Texas Human Resources Code §75.001.
The pertinent part of article 5138d reads as follows:
(b) In all Texas counties, the juvenile board . . . may, with the advice and consent of the commissioners court, employ and designate the titles and fix the salaries of probation officers . . . according to the standards established by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission and the needs of the local jurisdiction as determined by the juvenile board . . . . This determination, if inconsistent with salaries established by laws governing the creation of a juvenile probation department for a particular jurisdiction, supersedes and controls over those statutory provisions.
Prior to 1981, several statutes provided that compensation of juvenile probation officers would be fixed by certain juvenile boards "subject to the approval of the commissioners court." Such statutes were interpreted as authorization to the commissioners court to reject the compensation set by the juvenile board and to refuse necessary approval of a budget submitted by the juvenile board for the compensation of juvenile probation officers. See V.T.C.S. arts. 5142b, 5142c, 5142d; Attorney General Opinion MW-15 (1979). The enactment of article 5138d in 1981 impliedly repealed those prior statutes to the extent of conflict. If a conflict exists between two statutes, the earlier enactment is repealed by the later. See Stevens v. State, 159 S.W. 505, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913). Also, in Attorney General Opinion MW-587 (1982), this office determined that article 5138d expressly overrules salary determinations made under those prior statutes, and we agree with that conclusion.
Section 75.041 of the Texas Human Resources Code directs the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to promulgate reasonable rules for juvenile boards establishing minimum standards for personnel, staffing, case loads, programs, facilities, record keeping, equipment, and other aspects of the operation of a juvenile board necessary for the provision of adequate and effective probation services.
The provision in standard section 341.4(d) requiring juvenile probation officers to be paid not less than adult probation officers is such a "standard established by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission." In Attorney General Opinion MW-587, this office concluded that the language in article 5138d confers on juvenile boards the same authority to fix the salaries of juvenile probation personnel that the adult probation statute (article 42.12, section 10, Code Criminal Procedure), confers on district judges regarding the salaries of adult probation personnel. In other words, the controlling statute, article 5138d, provides for consultation with the commissioners court by the juvenile board in fixing the salaries of juvenile probation officers, but it does not authorize the commissioners court to reject the compensation set by the juvenile board in accordance with standards established by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, unless there is clear abuse of discretion. See Commissioners Court of Hays County v. District Judge, 506 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Accordingly, we conclude that Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard, section 341.4(d) is authorized by Texas statutes.
It is well established that a county has only those powers or duties which specifically are conferred on it by the constitution and statutes of this state. See Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S.W.2d 451, 453 (Tex. 1948); Renfro v. Shropshire, 566 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex. Civ. App. - Eastland 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Harrison County v. City of Marshall, 253 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1952, writ ref'd).
Article V, section 18 of the Texas Constitution vests the commissioners court with "such powers and jurisdiction over all county business, as is conferred by this Constitution and the laws of the State, or as may be hereafter prescribed." Neither article V, section 18, nor any other provision of the constitution, precludes the legislature from committing any county business to some other agency. Garrett v. Commissioners Court of Limestone County, 230 S.W. 1010, 1016 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1921), rev'd on other grounds, 236 S.W. 970. Article XVI, section 61 of the Texas Constitution, which relates to compensation for certain district and county officers on a salary basis, as distinguished from a fee basis, is not applicable to the constitutionality of standard 341.4(d).
Further, article III, section 44 of the Texas Constitution provides that "the legislature shall provide by law for the compensation of all officers, servants, agents and public contractors not provided for in this constitution." The duty of providing for compensation by law rests solely with the legislature, but section 44 does not prevent the legislature from empowering other authorities to determine salaries, as long as it provides guidelines capable of reasonable application. The fixing of the exact sum of compensation is a constitutionally delegable right. See In re Johnson, 554 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.), 569 S.W.2d 882; Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, supra, at 105. The provisions of chapter 75 of the Human Resources Code and article 5138d, which authorize juvenile boards to fix the salaries of juvenile probation officers according to the needs of the local jurisdictions and the uniform standards which the legislature directed the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to establish, constitute such a delegation of the power to set compensation. Therefore, we believe the statutes authorizing the promulgation of Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard section 341.4(d) are a constitutional delegation of authority by the legislature.
SUMMARY
Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard section 341.4(d), which requires that juvenile probation officers not be paid less than adult probation officers in the county or district, violates neither Texas statutes nor the Texas Constitution.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.