Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )


Menu:
  •       I
    The Attorney          General of Texas
    April 11, 1984
    JIM MATTOX
    Attorney General
    Supreme      Court Building             Honorable Jim Bob Darnell             opinion No.   JM-144
    P. 0. Box 12548                         Criminal District Attorney
    Austin,    TX. 79711. 2548                                                    Re:   Whether a rule of the
    2nd Floor
    5121475-2501
    Lubbock County Courthouse             Texas    Juvenile     Probation
    Telex    9101874-1367
    Telecopier     512/475-0266             P. 0. Box 10536                       Commission violates the Texas
    Lubbock, Texas   79408                Constitution or statutes
    714 Jackson,    Suite 700
    Dear Mr. Darnell:
    Dallas,   TX. 75202-4506
    2141742-8944
    You have asked whether the
    4824 Alberta       Ave., Suite    160            Texas Juvenile Probation Commission standard
    El Paso, TX.       79905.2793                    section   341.4(d),   which    requires  juvenile
    9151533.3484
    probation officers to be paid not less than adult
    r
    probation officers in the county or district,
    1001 Texas. Suite 700                            violates   either    the    Texas   statutes      or
    Houston,   TX. 77002-3111                        constitution.
    7131223-5986
    Texas Juvenile Probation Commission Standard section 341.4(d)
    806 Broadway,        Suite 312
    provides, in pertinent part, that
    Lubbock,     TX.    79401-3479
    8061747-5238                                      [the] juvenile board shall ensure that all salary
    levels of juvenile probation department personnel
    are reasonable and comparable with      prevailing
    4309 N. Tenth.     Suite B
    McAllen,     TX. 78501.16fl5                      salaries of the public and private sectors, in the
    5121682-4547                                      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
    200 Main Plaza, Suite 400
    San Antonio,  TX. 78205.2797
    officers.
    5121225-4191
    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
    An Equal       Opportunity/             improve the juvenile justice system by improving the effectiveness of
    Affirmative      Action     Employer
    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 975.001.
    The pertinent part of article 5138d reads as follows:
    (b) In all    Texas counties, the juvenile
    r                                                     board . . . may, with the advice and consent of
    p. 619
    Honorable Jim Bob Darnell - Page 2   (JM-144)
    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
    ?
    Etatutes, the earlier enactment is repealed by the later. See Stevens
    v. State, 
    159 S.W. 505
    , 507 (Tex. Grim. App. 1913). Also, inAttorney
    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 Cormnissionto promulgate reasonable rules for
    juvenile boards establishi~ng 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
    conrmissionerscourt to reject the compensation set by the juvenile       ?
    ,
    board in accordance with standards established by the Texas Juvenile
    p. 620
    .   .
    Honorable Jim Bob Dame11   - Page 3 (JM-144)
    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.Zd 100 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo
    1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.).      Accordingly, we conclude that Texas
    Juvenile Probation Comission 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. Shr?hire,  566 S.W.Zd 688, 690 (Tex. Civ. App.
    - Eastland 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Harrison County v. City of
    Marshall, 253 S.W.Zd 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
    leeislature from comittinn anv countv business to some other anencv.
    Gairett v. Commissioners tour; of Limes,tone County, 230 S.W.-1010,
    1016 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1921), ref 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 empowerin~gother 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. Ann. - Cornus Christ1 1977. writ ref'd n.r.e.1 569
    S.W.22 882; Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, &,     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 constitutjonal delegation
    of authority by the legislature.
    p. 621
    .   .
    Honorable Jim Bob Darnell - Page 4 (JM-144)
    SUMMARY
    Texas Juvenile Probation Comission 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.
    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
    APPROVFD:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Rick Gilpin, Chairman
    Jon Bible
    David Brooks
    Colin Carl
    Jim Hoellinger
    Nancy Sutton
    p. 622