Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS
    JOHN    CORNYN
    October 22,2002
    The Honorable Tim Cone                               Opinion No. JC-0565
    Upshur County Criminal District Attorney
    Upshur County Justice Center                         Re:     Whether section 130.908 of the Local
    405 North Titus Street                               Government Code applies when an incumbent
    Gilmer, Texas 75644                                  county commissioner is not renominated to office
    in a primary election, and related question
    (RQ-0540-JC)
    Dear Mr. Cone:
    You ask about section 130.908 of the Local Government                Code, which requires
    commissioners     court approval of a commissioner’s     expenditures “if a person other than [the]
    incumbent county commissioner is elected to the office of county commissioner of a county with a
    population of less than 50,000, during the time following the date the results of the official canvass
    of the election returns are announced.” TEX.LOC.GOV'T CODE ANN. 8 130.908 (Vernon 1999). We
    conclude that this provision applies after a person other than the incumbent commissioner has been
    elected to the office in the general election. We also conclude that it requires the commissioners
    court to preapprove the incumbent cornmissioner’s commitment of county funds.
    Section 130.908 provides as follows:
    If a person other than an incumbent county commissioner is
    elected to the office of county commissioner of a county with a
    population of less than 50,000, during the time following the date the
    results of the official canvass of the election returns are announced,
    the commissioners       court must approve any expenditures by the
    incumbent county commissioner who was not reelected.
    
    Id. (emphasis added).
    This provision was enacted in 1991 as House Bill 1057. A bill analysis
    explains that “some counties have a fiscal year budget that ends on September 30, rather than
    December 3 1. Because the terms of county commissioners end December 3 1, defeated incumbents
    in some counties have used the last three months of their term to spend all of the money in the new
    fiscalyearbudget.”  HOUSECOMM.ONCOI.JNTYAFFAIRS,BILLANALYSIS,Tex.H.B.l057,72dLeg.,
    R.S. (1991). The purpose of the bill was to “require the commissioners court in a county with fewer
    than 50,000 people, to approve all spending by the incumbent county commissioner who was not
    reelected.” 
    Id. The Honorable
    Tim Cone - Page 2                     (JC-0565)
    You first ask when section 130.908 applies. Specifically, you ask “[wlhether Section
    130.908.. . applies to an Incumbent County Commissioner that is not re-elected at the time of the
    Primary election or does it only apply to the General election.“* We gather that you ask about an
    incumbent commissioner who was either defeated or did not run for his or her party’s nomination
    for office in the primary election. You ask, in essence, whether section 130.908 applies once it is
    clear that an incumbent commissioner will not be reelected to office, or whether it applies only once
    a successor commissioner has been elected to office. We conclude that section 130.908 applies
    when a person other than the incumbent commissioner has been elected to the office in the general
    election.
    We construe section 130.908 according to its plain language. See Fitzgerald v. Advanced
    Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864,865 (Tex. 1999) (“[IIt is cardinal law in Texas that a court
    construes a statute, ‘first, by looking to the plain and common meaning of the statute’s words.“‘)
    (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, 966 S.W.2d 482,484 (Tex. 1998)). According
    to its plain language, section 130.908 is not triggered merely by the certainty that an incumbent
    commissioner will not serve another term. Rather, the requirements of section 130.908 are triggered
    when “a person other than an incumbent county commissioner is elected to the office of county
    commissioner.”     TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 130.908 (Vernon 1999). The time period for
    approval of the commissioner’s expenditures begins “following the date the results of the official
    canvass of the election returns are announced.” 
    Id. Section 130.908
    will not apply until after the official canvass of the election returns for the
    office of county commissioner is announced following the general election. A person cannot be
    elected county commissioner as a result of a primary election. “A primary election is simply a means
    by which a political party nominates its candidate for the general election.” Moore v. Barr, 
    718 S.W.2d 925
    , 927 (Tex. App.-Houston        [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). “[T]o be elected to a public
    office, a candidate must receive more votes than any other candidate for the office.” TEX. ELEC.
    CODE ANN. 8 2.001 (Vernon 1986). “A candidate cannot receive any votes unless the general
    election is held.” 
    Moore, 718 S.W.2d at 927
    . This is the case even if the person will run as an
    unopposed candidate in the general election, because chapter 2, subchapter C of the Election Code,
    which authorizes the governing body of a political subdivision to declare that an unopposed
    candidate has been elected to office, does not apply to elections for county officers. See TEX.ELEC.
    CODE ANN. $ 2.05 l(a) (suchapter C does not apply to an election of county officers), (b)(2)
    (requirements for subsection (a) must be met) (Vernon Supp. 2002).
    You also ask whether section 130.908 requires “prior approval of any expenditure by [an]
    incumbent County Commissioner who is not re-elected.” Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1.
    Generally, a commissioners court expends county funds according to the county budget and it does
    so as a body. See TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. chs. 111,113 (Vernon 1999 & Supp. 2002). And,
    as a general matter, commissioners acting in their individual capacity do not have the authority to
    ‘See Letter from Honorable Tim Cone, Upshur County Criminal District Attorney, to Honorable John Cornyn,
    Texas Attorney General (Apr. 30,2002) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter].
    The Honorable Tim Cone - Page 3                (JC-0565)
    bind the county or to spend county funds. See, e.g., Canales v. Laughlin, 
    214 S.W.2d 45
    1,455 (Tex.
    1948) (“individual commissioners have no authority to bind the county by their separate action”);
    Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0307 (2002) at 8-9 (cornrnissioners court must approve claim, invoice,
    or bill acting as a body in a public meeting), JC-0100 (1999) (county commissioner serving as ex
    officio road commissioner lacks authority to make purchases binding on county). Section 115.021
    of the Local Government Code directs that the commissioners court as a whole “shall audit and settle
    all accounts against the county and shall direct the payment of those accounts.” TEX. Lot. GOV’T
    CODE ANN. 5 115.02 1 (Vernon 1999); see also 
    id. 5 113.064(a)
    (in county with county auditor,
    auditor must approve each claim, bill, or account before the meeting of the commissioners court).
    Section 130.908 provides that a commissioners court “must approve any expenditures by the
    incumbent county commissioner who was not reelected.” TEX.Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 130.908
    (Vernon 1999). Given that the Local Government Code generally requires a commissioners court
    to approve county expenditures and payments of claims against the county, we conclude that section
    130.908 contemplates a commissioners court’s advance approval before an incumbent commissioner
    may commit county funds. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671,681
    (Tex. 1979) (“It is apparent that in amending the statute, the legislature intended some change in the
    existing law, and this court will endeavor to effect the change.“); Am. Sur. Co. of N. Y. v. Axtell, 36
    S.W.2d 715,719 (Tex. 193 1) (legislature presumed to have intended some change to existing law
    when amendment was enacted and effect must be given to amendment). Furthermore, the statute,
    in using the word “must,” makes such advance approval a mandatory duty. See Helena Chem. Co.
    v. Wilkins, 
    47 S.W.3d 486
    , 493 (Tex. 2001) (“While Texas courts have not interpreted ‘must’ as
    often as ‘shall,’ both terms are generally recognized as mandatory, creating a duty or obligation.“);
    Wright v. Ector County Indep. Sch. Dist., 867 S.W.2d 863,868 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1993, no writ)
    (“The ordinary meaning of ‘shall’ or ‘must’ is of a mandatory effect, whereas the ordinary meaning
    of ‘may’ is merely permissive in nature.“); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 3 11.016(3) (Vernon
    1998) (the term “‘must’ creates or recognizes a condition precedent”). How a commissioners court
    will comply with that duty, such as by limiting appropriations or requiring advance approval of
    individual expenditures, will depend upon the county’s spending procedures.
    The Honorable Tim Cone - Page 4                  (JC-0565)
    SUMMARY
    Section 130.908 of the Local Government Code applies after
    a person other than the incumbent commissioner has been elected to
    the office in the general election. It requires commissioners court
    approval of a commissioner’s expenditures “if a person other than
    [the] incumbent county commissioner is elected to the office of
    county commissioner of a county with a population of less than
    50,000, during the time following the date the results of the official
    canvass of the election returns are announced.” TEX. LOC. GOV’T
    CODEANN. $130.908 (Vernon 1999). It requires the commissioners
    court to preapprove an affected incumbent commissioner’s
    commitment of county funds following the general election.
    L
    JO fr N CORNYN
    Attorney General of Texas
    HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    NANCY FULLER
    Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel
    SUSAN DENMON GUSKY
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Mary R. Crouter
    Assistant Attorney General
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JC-565

Judges: John Cornyn

Filed Date: 7/2/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017