Opinion No.
Background
- Grimes County Auditor Mary L. Nichols submitted five questions to the Texas Attorney General about authority over county budgeting and payroll functions.
- Questions concern (1) auditor’s duty to create budget lines during emergency amendments if grave public necessity is lacking, (2) whether auditor’s duty to enforce county finances authorizes refusal to create lines, (3) sufficiency of notice for an emergency budget amendment, (4) whether a human resources director is an appropriate official to perform payroll clerical duties, (5) whether the County Judge may countersign county checks when the Auditor is unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to create budget lines in an emergency amendment | Nichols argues auditor can refuse to create lines without grave necessity. | Abbott argues only the court may authorize emergency amendments; no statutorily granted auditor authority to determine emergency. | Auditor cannot refuse to create lines; only court may determine emergency. |
| Auditor's duty to enforce finances vs. authority to block amendments | Nichols asserts duty to enforce finances supports potential denial of lines. | Abbott holds duty does not authorize refusal to implement court-approved amendments. | Duty to enforce finances does not authorize veto of emergency budget amendments. |
| Adequacy of notice for emergency budget amendment | Nichols contends notice should sufficiently describe emergency action. | Abbott notes notice may be sufficient if it alerts about amendment to resources, though not explicit about emergency. | Notice can be legally sufficient depending on description; not necessarily explicit emergency language. |
| Appropriate official for payroll clerical duties | Nichols questions HR director as an appropriate official for payroll clerical tasks. | Abbott notes payroll clerical functions may be assigned to an appropriate county official; HR director may qualify if a county officer. | HR director may be an appropriate official only if considered a county officer with delegated payroll duties. |
| Countersigning checks by County Judge vs. Auditor | Nichols reports past practice of Judge countersigning when Auditor unavailable. | Abbott states only Auditor or her qualified assistants may countersign; duties cannot be delegated. | Only the Auditor or her qualified assistants may countersign checks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bexar Cnty. v. Hatley, 150 S.W.2d 980 (Tex. 1941) (emergency budget amendments require court determination of grave public necessity; presumptive validity of emergency finding)
- Navarro Cnty. v. Tullos, 237 S.W.982 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1922) (auditor and commissioners court operate per statutory prescription; limits on countermanding emergency actions)
- City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 820 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 1991) (notice must describe the subject sufficiently to alert readers to proposed action)
- Lower Colo. River Auth. v. City of San Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 1975) (notice sufficiency when action relates to existing matter rather than creation of new matter)
- Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986) (public notice standards and specificity required for public meetings)
- Harris Cnty. v. Fullerton, 596 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1980) (delegation of auditor duties limited to qualified assistants; cannot be delegated to others)