Could a county auditor require travel documentation from commissioners receiving fixed monthly allowances, and which trips could the county cover?

Texas AG Opinion JM-879: County Commissioner Travel Allowances

Plain-English summary

The district attorney for the 155th Judicial District asked whether a county auditor could require travel records from commissioners receiving fixed monthly travel allowances. He also asked whether several common kinds of commissioner travel could be reimbursed.

The Attorney General said the auditor could not require documentation before paying a fixed allowance. A commissioners court could set that allowance under Local Government Code section 152.011 without making each commissioner prove the exact expenses incurred.

The allowance was not unlimited. It had to be reasonably related to official county business and reasonable in relation to expenses actually incurred or expected. The commissioners court had to make those judgments in good faith.

Travel between home and the courthouse for meetings was normally personal commuting and not reimbursable, although exceptional circumstances could make it county business. Travel to inspect roads or oversee maintenance could qualify. Attendance at dedications, civic ceremonies, county fairs, or similar events depended on a case-specific decision that the commissioner's presence served the county rather than a personal purpose.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988. 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

Could the auditor demand receipts or mileage records before paying a fixed allowance?

No. The opinion said commissioners receiving fixed monthly travel allowances did not have to furnish that documentation to the county auditor before payment.

Did that mean the allowance could be arbitrary?

No. It had to bear a reasonable relationship to county business and to actual or expected travel expenses.

Was travel from home to the courthouse reimbursable?

Normally no. Exceptional circumstances could make a particular trip serve the county's interests.

Could commissioners claim travel for road inspections?

Yes, to the extent that inspecting roads and overseeing maintenance was reasonably related to official county business.

What about dedications, civic ceremonies, and county fairs?

The commissioners court had to decide case by case whether attendance served a county purpose or only the official's personal interests.

Background and statutory framework

Local Government Code section 152.011 directed the commissioners court to set compensation, office and travel expenses, and other allowances for county and precinct officers and employees paid wholly from county funds. The provision had previously appeared in former article 3912k.

Attorney General Opinion H-992 (1977) concluded that fixed travel allowances did not require proof of each expense before payment, but the amount had to be reasonably related to expenses actually incurred. JM-148 (1984) added that commissioner travel expenses had to be reasonably related to official county business.

JM-350 (1985) had approved county travel funds for commissioners opposing a private-club permit when the commissioners court determined that in-person advocacy served the county's interest. JM-879 applied the same county-purpose analysis to the travel categories presented.

Citations

Statutory authority:

• Local Government Code section 152.011
• Former V.T.C.S. article 3912k
• Alcoholic Beverage Code sections 11.41(b) and 11.43
• V.T.C.S. article 6702-1, the County Road and Bridge Act

Prior Attorney General materials referenced: H-992 (1977), JM-148 (1984), and JM-350 (1985).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-879
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1988/jm0879.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Obvious character-level OCR errors have been corrected, but minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS

March 31, 1988

Honorable Charles D. Houston Opinion No. JM-879
District Attorney
155th Judicial District Re: Authority of the county
One East Main auditor to require travel
Bellville, Texas 77418 documentation from county
commissioners and related
questions (RQ-1328)

Dear Mr. Houston:

You ask the advice of this office relative to the authority of the county auditor to require travel documentation from members of the commissioners court who receive fixed monthly travel allowances pursuant to section 152.011 of the Local Government Code (formerly found in article 3912k, V.T.C.S.). Additional questions submitted relate to whether the following types of travel by members of the commissioners court are reimbursable:

1. Travel from residence to courthouse to attend meetings.

2. Travel for the purpose of inspecting roads and overseeing the repair and maintenance thereof.

3. Travel for the purpose of attending dedications and other civic ceremonies.

4. Travel for the purpose of attending County Fairs and other public celebrations.

Section 152.011 of the Local Government Code provides:

The commissioners court of a county shall set the amount of the compensation, office and travel expenses, and all other allowances for the county and precinct officers and employees who are paid wholly from county funds.

In Attorney General Opinion H-992 (1977), it was stated that where the commissioners court had set a fixed amount to be paid county and precinct officials for travel allowance pursuant to article 3912k (now section 152.011 of the Local Government Code), the legislature apparently did not intend that the members of the commissioners court would be required to show that traveling expenses allowed them had actually been incurred before payment could be made. However, it was concluded that the allowances must be reasonably related to expenses actually incurred.

In Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984), it was concluded that the commissioners may fix the amount of travel expenses allowed to the members of the commissioners court so long as the allowance is reasonably related to official county business.

The question of whether a commissioners court may expend county travel funds to oppose issuance by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission of a private club permit was addressed in Attorney General Opinion JM-350 (1985). Under section 11.43 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the Alcoholic Beverage Commission has discretionary authority to grant such permits. Section 11.41(b) of the code provides that the commission or administrator may give consideration to a recommendation made in writing by the commissioners court of the county in which an applicant proposes to conduct his business. While personal appearances at the hearing were not a prerequisite to consideration by the commission, the opinion noted that in-person advocacy might prove to be a more effective method of persuasion. It was concluded that if the commissioners court deems it to be in the interest of the county to do so, it may expend county travel funds for opposing an application for a private club.

A careful reading of the statute now codified as section 152.011 of the Local Government Code, and of the foregoing opinions construing the predecessor statute, former article 3912k, V.T.C.S., dictates that the commissioners court may establish the amount of automobile expenses to be allowed county and precinct officials and that such officials are not required to furnish documentation to the county auditor before payment of such allowance is made. However, in setting the amount of travel allowance, the commissioners court is required to follow certain guidelines. First, the allowance must be reasonably related to official county business; secondly, the amounts must be reasonable in relation to expenses actually incurred or to be incurred.

In Attorney General Opinion H-992, it was concluded that travel between home and office is not official travel subject to reimbursement in normal circumstances. Exceptional circumstances may dictate that such travel is in the best interest of the county and falls within the requirement that travel be reasonably related to county business. Travel for the purpose of inspecting roads and overseeing the maintenance thereof would be reimbursable to the extent that such activity is reasonably related to official county business. See County Road and Bridge Act, article 6702-1, V.T.C.S., for duties of members of the commissioners court in overseeing and maintaining roads.

Whether travel for public functions such as dedications, civic ceremonies and county fairs by members of the commissioners court is reimbursable must turn on whether attendance is in the interest of the county or whether it is solely for the personal purposes of the individual official.

In the final analysis, the allowance must be governed by what amount the commissioners court, in good faith, deems to be necessary for travel reasonably related to county business. Whether attendance at a certain type of activity by a member of the commissioners court is reasonably related to county business is a factual determination to be made by the commissioners court, on a case by case basis.

SUMMARY

The county auditor may not require documentation from members of the commissioners court who receive fixed monthly travel allowances. Travel from a residence to the courthouse by a member of the commissioners court for the purpose of attending meetings is not normally reimbursable. Travel for the purpose of inspecting roads and overseeing the maintenance thereof is reimbursable insofar as it is reasonably related to county business. See County Road and Bridge Act, article 6702-1, V.T.C.S., for duties of commissioners court in overseeing and maintaining roads. Whether attendance at public functions such as dedications, civic ceremonies and county fairs is reimbursable is a factual determination which must be made on a case by case basis by the commissioners court. Such travel is reimbursable when presence by the commissioner at the activity has a reasonable relationship to county business. Amounts must be fixed at a figure reasonably related to expenses actually incurred.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU McCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General