Opinion No.
Background
- Smith County operates under Local Government Code Subchapter A with the county judge as budget officer.
- The judge engaged a volunteer financial consultant to assist with budget assessment and information gathering.
- The consultant sought access to department information (e.g., job descriptions, salary data) with redactions for confidential material.
- Questions were raised whether the judge may unilaterally grant access to records without consent of the full commissioners court.
- The opinion addresses the judge's authority to delegate tasks and the mechanism to obtain information under §111.005(a), and the role of the Public Information Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the county judge delegate access to budget records without commissioners court approval? | Plaintiff contends approval from the court is required. | Abbott argues the judge may designate ministerial tasks to aid in preparing the budget without court approval. | Judge may delegate nondiscretionary/administrative tasks to the consultant. |
| Is PIA compliance required for information obtained under §111.005(a)? | PIA requests may be necessary to obtain budget information. | PIA not required; information may be provided under §111.005(a) with court remedy if needed. | Consultant may obtain budget information under §111.005(a); PIA not required; remedy is an order from the commissioners court under §111.005(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P., 296 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009) (limitations on authority of public officers and implied powers)
- Fort Worth Cavalry Club v. Sheppard, 83 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1935) (express vs. implied powers of public officers)
- City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (district/municipal powers limited to express and implied authorities)
- Pritchard Abbott v. McKenna, 350 S.W.2d 333 (Tex. 1961) (commissioners court not to manage all county affairs; elected official's delegated authority)
- Hooten v. Enriquez, 863 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1993) (exclusive authority to appoint assistants for statutory duties; delegation of nondiscretionary tasks possible)
- Lipsey v. Tex. Dept. of Health, 727 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. App.-Austin 1987) (public officers may obtain assistance for nondiscretionary tasks necessary to discharge duties)
- City of San Benito v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co., 109 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. 2003) (delegation of administrative tasks permissible; decision-making remains with governing body)