Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1992 )


Menu:
  •                          @ffice of ttJe ZZMmtep @enera
    &date of IEexas
    DAN MORALES
    ATTORSEY
    GESERAL                           March 13,1992
    Honorable James F. Hury, Jr.                  Opinion No. DM-96
    Chairman
    Ways and Means Committee                      Re: Authority of a commissioners court
    Texas House of Representatives                to designate an agent to invest county
    P. 0. I3ox 2910                               funds (RQ-227)
    Austin, Texas 78768-2910
    Dear Representative Hury:
    You have requested our opinion on a number of questions involving the
    investment of county funds. You first ask whether the commissioners court may
    remove the county treasurer from the investment process.
    Section 116.112 of the Local Government Code provides:
    (a) The commissioners court may direct the county
    treasurer to withdraw any county funds deposited in a county
    depository that are not immediately required to pay obligations
    of the county and invest those funds as provided by this section
    unless such an investment or withdrawal is prohibited by law or
    the withdrawal is contrary to the terms of the depository
    contract.
    (b) The funds may be invested in accordance with the
    Public Funds Investment Act of 1987 (Article 842a-2, Vernon’s
    Texas Civil Statutes). In addition to the obligations, certificates,
    and agreements described by that Act, the funds may be
    invested in certificates of deposit issued by a state or federal
    savings and loan association domiciled in this state, the payment
    of which is insured in full by the Federal Savings and Loan
    Insurance Corporation or its successor.
    P-     484
    Honorable James F. Hury, Jr. - Page 2 (DM-96)
    Section 116.112 contemplates the involvement of two entities in the investment
    process: the commissioners court and the county treasurer.* The role of the
    commissioners court is discretionary: the court determines the amount of funds
    which shall be invested and the type of investment. This role is consistent with the
    court’s general authority over county funds. The commissioners court is charged, for
    example, with the duty of designating which county funds shall be demand deposits
    and which shall be time deposits, and it is empowered to “contract with a depository
    for interest on time deposits.” local Gov’t Code 6 116.111.
    By contrast, the treasurer’s role under section 116.112 is ministerial in
    character: the treasurer carries out the directives of the commissioners court. This
    function is also consistent with the treasurer’s other duties. Section 113.001 of the
    Local Government Code declares that “[t]he county treasurer, as chief custodian of
    county funds, shall keep in a designated depository and shall account for all money
    belonging to the county.” Section 113.003 provides that “[t]he county treasurer shall
    receive all money belonging to the county from whatever source it may be derived.”
    The treasurer is required to disburse money belonging to the county, which he must
    pay and apply as required by law and as the commissioners court may direct. 
    Id. 3 113.041(a).
    The treasurer is also directed to endorse checks or warrants drawn on
    the county treasury by a proper authority. 
    Id. 3 113.042(a).
    The treasurer may not,
    however, make a payment if he “doubts the legality or propriety of an order, decree,
    certificate, or warrant presented to the treasurer for payment.” 
    Id. $113.041(d). In
    such cases, the treasurer must report the matter to the commissioners court for
    further direction.     Each of these responsibilities in essentially ministerial in
    character.
    Section 116.112 does not define the term “invest.” It is clear, however, that,
    when read together with the other provisions of chapters 113 and 116, the statute
    envisions an investment process comprising a mix of discretionary and ministerial
    acts. Section 116.112(a) authorizes a commissioners court to “direct the county
    treasurer” to “invest” county funds. No reference is made to any other officer or
    employee, Furthermore, under the terms of chapter 113, the treasurer is the “chief
    custodian” of county funds, and has the responsibility of disbursing and accounting
    ‘The office of county treasurer has been abolished in a number of counties, specifically
    Tarrant, Bee, Bexar, Collin, Andrew, Greg, El Paso, Fayette, and Nueccs. See Tex Con% art. XVI,
    9 44. Since it is a constitutional office, it may not be abolished by statute. Moncrie~ K Cur&. 609
    S.W.Zd 863,865 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort. Worth 1980, writ rePd n.r.e.).
    p.   485
    Honorable James F. Hury. Jr. - Page 3 (DM-96)
    for them.     We believe that the cited provisions of the Local Government Code
    confer on     the county treasurer the minirrerkzf functions associated with the
    investment    of county funds, and on the commissioners court the discretionary
    authorky to   direct the investment process.
    Another statute, article 4413(34c), V.T.C.S., enacted in 1979, is applicable to
    a variety of state agencies and political subdivisions. It addresses, inter aka, the
    investment, deposit, withdrawal, transfer, and management of county funds. “Local
    funds” is defined in that statute as
    public funds in the custody of a state agency or political
    subdivision that are not required by law to be deposited in the
    state treasury and that the agency or subdivision has legal
    authority to invest.
    V.T.C.S. art. 4413(34c), 3: l(1). “Political subdivision” is defined as “a county,
    incorporated city or town, or special purpose district.” 
    Id. $ l(3):
    The statute
    further provides, in pertinent part:
    Sec. 2.(a) Each state agency or political subdivision shall
    adopt rules governing the investment of local funds of the
    agency or subdivision. The rules shall clearly specify the scope
    of authority of officers and employees of the agency or
    subdivision that are designated to invest the local funds.
    (b) A political subdivision may designate an officer or
    employee of a public funds investment pool created under The
    Interlocal Cooperation Act (Article 4413(32c), Vernon’s Texas
    Civil Statutes) as the investment officer with responsibility for
    local funds investment. An officer or employee of a commission
    created pursuant to Chapter 391, Local Government Code
    [Regional Planning Commission], is not eligible to be designated
    under this section.
    Sec. 3.(a) If an officer is not assigned the function by law, a
    state agency or political subdivision by rule, order, ordinance, or
    resolution shall designate one or more officers or employees of
    P.   486
    Honorable James F. Hury, Jr. - Page 4 (DM-96)
    the agency, subdivision, or public funds investment pool to be
    responsible for the investment of local funds.
    (b) No person may deposit, withdraw, invest, transfer; or
    otherwise manage local funds of a state agency or political
    subdivision that are eligible for investment without express
    written authority of the governing body or chief executive officer
    of the agency or subdivision.
    Since chapters 113 and 116 of the Local Government Code deal only with
    county investments, while article 4413(34c), V.T.C.S., addresses the subject of
    investment by a variety of state agencies and political subdivisions, the provisions of
    the Local Government Code constitute the more specific statutes. Although, in a
    direct conflict, a specific statute controls over one which is more general, it is also
    the case that statutes dealing with the same subject matter should be construed
    together and, if possible, harmonized. Trimmier v. Carbon, 296 SW. 1070 (Tex.
    1927). We believe that article 4413(34c) may be read in harmony with chapters 113
    and 116 of the Local Government Code. Nothing in article 4413(34c) would permit
    the commissioners court to entirely remove the county treasurer from the
    investment process. While the ultimate responsibility for designating the type and
    amount of investment, under the terms of section 116.112(a), lies with the
    commissioners court, the court, in effecting the investment, may act only through the
    agency of the treasurer.
    Article 4413(34c) does, however, appear to allow the commissioners court to
    delegate its own role in the investment process. The general rule is that absent an
    enabling statute, a commissioners court may not delegate powers that involve the
    exercise of judgment or discretion. Guerra v. Rodriguez, 
    239 S.W.2d 915
    (Tex. Civ.
    App.--San Antonio 1951, no writ). The.court may, however, appoint an agent to
    make a contract on behalf of the county for, inrer alia, “any . . . purpose authorized
    by law.” Local Gov’t Code $262.001(a)(3). Under section 3(a) of article 4413(34c),
    the commissioners court may “designate one or more officers or employees. . . [as]
    responsible for the investment of local funds.” The court is required to “adopt rules”
    which “shall clearly specify the scope of authority” of those persons “that are
    designated to invest the local funds.” V.T.C.S. art. 4413(34c), 5 2(a). Furthermore,
    no individual may direct such investment “without express written authority” of the
    commissioners court. 
    Id. 5 3(b).
    Thus, so long as it conforms to the guidelines set
    forth in article 4413(34c), a commissioners court may appoint an investment officer
    p.   487
    Honorable James F. Huty, Jr. - Page 5 (DM-96)
    or employee to perform its function of directing the county treasurer to make
    investments.* Since commissioners are also “officers” of the county, the court may
    delegate to one, two or three of its members sole discretion in making daily
    investment decisions and issuing directives to the county treasurer.
    SUMMARY
    A commissioners court may not remove a county treasurer
    entirely from the process of investing county funds, but it may
    designate which funds are to be invested and direct the treasurer
    to invest those funds in accordance with the Public Funds
    Investment Act, article 842a-2, V.T.C.S. A commissioners court
    may, by express written authority, delegate its designative and
    directive functions to another county officer or employee,
    including one or more individual commissioners.
    Very truly yours,
    DAN      MORALES
    Attorney General of Texas
    *Article 4413(34c) would seem to permit the commissioners court to delegate its investment
    functions to the county treasurer, since that individual is a “county officer.”
    p.   488
    Honorable James F. Hury, Jr. - Page 6 (DM-96)
    WILL PRYOR
    First Assistant Attorney General
    MARY KELLER
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General
    JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret)
    Special Assistant Attorney General
    RENEA HICKS
    Special Assistant Attorney General
    MADELEINE B. JOHNSON
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Prepared by Rick Gilpin
    Assistant Attorney General
    P.   489
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DM-96

Judges: Dan Morales

Filed Date: 7/2/1992

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017