Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-0895
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2011Background
- AG asked whether Hunt County Bail Bond Board could enact Rule 9.1(g) restricting employment of probation/parolees or defendants in pending cases.
- Rule 9.1 defines “employee” and sets thresholds (f) and (g) including a ten-year misdemeanor/felony conviction limitation and current status restrictions.
- Rule 9.1(g) adds probation/parole and pending criminal case prohibitions beyond statutory limits.
- Texas Occupations Code § 1704.302(c) and related statutory framework govern licensing and employee eligibility.
- Earlier Stein decision suggested broad rule-making power but preceded explicit employee-eligibility limits enacted later by the Legislature.
- Court concludes Rule 9.1(g) imposes burdens beyond statute and exceeds Board authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 9.1(g) exceed statutory authority? | Board has broad rule-making power under §1704.101. | Rule aligns with general objectives and expands compliance. | Rule 9.1(g) exceeds authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas Cnty. Bail Bond Bd. v. Stein, 771 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1989) (board may regulate employees only insofar as consistent with statute)
- Tex. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Harris Cnty. Bail Bond Bd., 684 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. App.-Houston (14th Dist.) 1984) (local rules cannot add to statutory licensing requirements)
- Pruett v. Harris Cnty. Bail Bond Bd., 249 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. 2008) (courts consider whether board adds to licensing requirements; limits apply)
- Bexar Cnty. Bail Bond Bd. v. Deckard, 604 S.W.2d 214 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1980) (boards cannot impose conflicting burdens beyond statute)