Could the Harris County Commissioners Court reject the hospital district's entire budget because it funded a pregnancy-termination clinic?

Texas AG Opinion JM-79: Harris County Hospital District Budget Approval

Plain-English summary

JM-79 concluded that the Harris County Commissioners Court could reject any budget submitted by the Harris County Hospital District. Article 4494n gave the commissioners court "final approval" over the annual budget and budget revisions.

"But it accords to the commissioners court the right of 'final approval.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"[W]e must conclude . . . that the commissioners court is the body ultimately responsible for the financial affairs of the county, and that, as such, it is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

The request arose from a proposed budget that funded a pregnancy-termination clinic. The opinion addressed the commissioners court's budget authority, not the legality or policy merits of the clinic itself.

"You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of the Harris County Commissioners Court to refuse to approve the budget of the Harris County Hospital District."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"Re: Authority of commissioners court to refuse to approve hospital budget on grounds that it funds pregnancy termination clinic"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

The commissioners court did not have to explain why it rejected the budget. JM-79 also declined to say what course would be advisable as a matter of sound administration.

"Nor do we believe that any statute requires the commissioners court to specify the reason for its disapproval."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"We make no determination, of course, regarding what is advisable in the interests of sound administrative practice."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. 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

Who prepared the hospital district budget, and who had final approval?

The hospital-district administrator prepared the annual budget under the board of managers' direction. The board approved it first, and the commissioners court then exercised final approval.

"Under the direction of the Board of Managers, he shall prepare an annual budget which shall be approved by the Board of Managers and shall then be presented to the Commissioners Court for final approval."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Did the commissioners court have to approve a reasonable hospital budget?

JM-79 did not impose a reasonableness-only limit under article 4494n. It read the unqualified phrase "final approval" to permit rejection of any submitted budget.

"In our opinion, article 4494n is similar to the statutes construed in Attorney General Opinions MW-15 and H-908. It authorizes the administrator and board of managers of a hospital district to propose and submit a suggested budget. But it accords to the commissioners court the right of 'final approval.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"[I]t is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Did the commissioners court have to state that the clinic funding was its reason?

No. The opinion found no statute requiring the court to specify a reason for disapproval.

"Nor do we believe that any statute requires the commissioners court to specify the reason for its disapproval."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Why did Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin not control?

Martin involved ambiguous statutory language and a statute designed to place probation supervision within the state courts. JM-79 found neither the same ambiguity nor the same broader statutory responsibility in the hospital-budget provision.

"The language relating to the commissioners court's duty in [Martin] was ambiguous, and . . . the courts relied on the rest of the act to ascertain the legislative intent."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"There is neither a similar ambiguity in article 5142b nor similar language which would broaden the responsibility of the juvenile board."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Why did Commissioners Court of Harris County v. Fullerton not require approval?

Fullerton concerned equipment that article 1650 specifically authorized the county auditor to obtain. JM-79 said the hospital-district expenditures at issue lacked a comparable specific statutory authorization.

"The decision was based, however, on article 1650, V.T.C.S., which authorizes a county auditor 'to provide himself with all necessary ledgers, books, records, blanks, stationery, equipment, telephones and postage at the county's expense.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"Since no statute specifically authorizes a hospital district to make the expenditures about which you inquire, we must conclude . . . that the commissioners court . . . is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Article 4494n governed the Harris County Hospital District's operation. Section 8 required an annual report and set the approval sequence for the budget and revisions.

"The operation of the Harris County Hospital District is governed by article 4494n, V.T.C.S."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"In like manner all budget revisions shall be subject to approval by the Commissioners Court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

JM-79 relied on two earlier Attorney General opinions construing similar language. MW-15 allowed commissioners to decline a juvenile-board compensation budget, while H-908 treated prosecutors as responsible for personnel decisions and commissioners as responsible for financial approval.

"The opinion concluded that section 5 of article 5142b authorized the El Paso County Commissioners Court to decline to approve a budget for compensation of juvenile probation officers submitted by the county juvenile board."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

"It makes the commissioners court responsible for financial matters -- approving the prosecutors' salary and travel expense proposals, and providing for office expenses."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Holding

"The commissioners court of Harris County, pursuant to its right of 'final approval' of the budget of the Harris County Hospital District, is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.pdf

Citations and references

Statutes discussed by JM-79:

• "article 4494n, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
• "section 8" Official PDF
• "article 5142b, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
• "article 332a, section 5" Official PDF
• "section 10 of article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure" Official PDF
• "article 1650, V.T.C.S." Official PDF

Cases cited by JM-79:

• "Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.)" Official PDF
• "Commissioners Court of Harris County v. Fullerton, 596 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.)" Official PDF

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0079
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0079.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

October 13, 1983

Honorable Mike Driscoll
Harris County Attorney
1001 Preston, Suite 634
Houston, Texas 77002

Opinion No. JM-79

Re: Authority of commissioners court to refuse to approve hospital budget on grounds that it funds pregnancy termination clinic

Dear Mr. Driscoll:

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of the Harris County Commissioners Court to refuse to approve the budget of the Harris County Hospital District.

The operation of the Harris County Hospital District is governed by article 4494n, V.T.C.S., which provides in section 8 the following:

Sec. 8. Once each year, as soon as practicable after the close of the fiscal year, the Administrator of the Hospital District shall report to the Board of Managers, the Commissioners Court, the State Board of Health and the State Comptroller a full sworn statement of all moneys and choses in action received by such Administrator and how disbursed or otherwise disposed of. Such report shall show in detail the operations of the District for the term. Under the direction of the Board of Managers, he shall prepare an annual budget which shall be approved by the Board of Managers and shall then be presented to the Commissioners Court for final approval. In like manner all budget revisions shall be subject to approval by the Commissioners Court. (Emphasis added).

In Attorney General Opinion MW-15 (1979), this office construed article 5142b, V.T.C.S., regarding the budget submitted by a juvenile board. That statute provided the following in pertinent part:

Section 5. The compensation of all probation officers shall be fixed by the Juvenile Board subject to the approval of the County Commissioners Court . . . .

The opinion concluded that section 5 of article 5142b authorized the El Paso County Commissioners Court to decline to approve a budget for compensation of juvenile probation officers submitted by the county juvenile board.

In Attorney General Opinion H-908 (1976), this office held that salaries for assistants and investigators fixed by a prosecuting attorney must be approved by the commissioners court in order to become effective. The language of the statute was identical to that considered in Attorney General Opinion MW-15. The opinion noted:

The relevant language of article 332a, section 5, is unambiguous and can be read in harmony with the entire statute without departing from its plain meaning. The statute makes prosecuting attorneys responsible for personnel matters -- hiring, removal and setting salaries and travel expenses . . . . It makes the commissioners court responsible for financial matters -- approving the prosecutors' salary and travel expense proposals, and providing for office expenses . . . .

In our opinion, article 4494n is similar to the statutes construed in Attorney General Opinions MW-15 and H-908. It authorizes the administrator and board of managers of a hospital district to propose and submit a suggested budget. But it accords to the commissioners court the right of "final approval."

It has been suggested that two judicial decisions require a different result. Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.), was discussed in Attorney General Opinion MW-15. That case, involving appointment of adult probation officers under section 10 of article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concluded that a commissioners court was not authorized to reject a budget submitted by a district judge unless the budget was so unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Attorney General Opinion MW-15 declared:

The language relating to the commissioners court's duty in [Martin] was ambiguous, and . . . the courts relied on the rest of the act to ascertain the legislative intent. The statute specifically indicated that this purpose was to place responsibility for probation supervision wholly within the state courts. There is neither a similar ambiguity in article 5142b nor similar language which would broaden the responsibility of the juvenile board.

In Commissioners Court of Harris County v. Fullerton, 596 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the Harris County auditor had submitted an equipment budget to the commissioners court. The commissioners rejected specific items of equipment and reduced the budget by $380,000. The court held that, once the auditor makes a determination that a particular item of equipment is necessary for the proper functioning of his office, the commissioners must ministerially take the proper legal steps to provide that equipment "unless it finds that the county auditor abused his discretion." Id. at 576. The decision was based, however, on article 1650, V.T.C.S., which authorizes a county auditor "to provide himself with all necessary ledgers, books, records, blanks, stationery, equipment, telephones and postage at the county's expense."

Under the court's reasoning in Fullerton, the commissioners court would be obliged to ministerially approve only those items in the hospital district's budget which article 4494n, or some other statute, specifically authorized. Since no statute specifically authorizes a hospital district to make the expenditures about which you inquire, we must conclude, on the authority of Attorney General Opinions MW-15 and H-908, that the commissioners court is the body ultimately responsible for the financial affairs of the county, and that, as such, it is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district. Nor do we believe that any statute requires the commissioners court to specify the reason for its disapproval. We make no determination, of course, regarding what is advisable in the interests of sound administrative practice.

SUMMARY

The commissioners court of Harris County, pursuant to its right of "final approval" of the budget of the Harris County Hospital District, is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Bruce Youngblood