Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0146

County commissioners court established a veterans treatment court program under Government Code ch. 124 and funded positions (including grant-funded positions).
Dispute arose between the commissioners court and the veterans treatment court judge over who may hire, select, and supervise the program’s project director and staff.
Chapter 124 defines required program components and assigns duties (e.g., individualized treatment plans, ongoing judicial interaction) but is silent about employment selection/supervision procedures.
Commissioners courts have implied administrative authority to create positions and provide funding for county programs.
Courts have statutory and inherent authority to appoint staff necessary to perform judicial functions and preserve judicial independence.
The Attorney General concluded the commissioners court may create and fund positions, but the judge is authorized to select and supervise program staff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who may create and fund program positions?	Commissioners court may not limit judicial program functions.	Commissioners court has authority to create positions and fund programs.	Commissioners court may create positions and provide funding.
Who selects and supervises veterans treatment court staff?	Commissioners court asserts control over hiring/supervision of grant-funded staff.	Judge contends judicial authority and inherent power to select/supervise staff.	Judge authorized to select and supervise program staff; commissioners court may not usurp that duty.
Does chapter 124 limit court role to case disposition only?	Commissioners court reads chapter as assigning administrative control to itself.	Judge argues chapter’s duties (ongoing judicial interaction, treatment plans, hearings) implicate judicial functions, supporting judicial control of staff.	Chapter 124 incorporates judicial duties into the program, supporting judge’s authority over staff selection/supervision.
Does silence in chapter 124 indicate legislative intent against judicial hiring authority?	Commissioners court: silence suggests commissioners court control.	Judge: Legislature has shown how to allocate hiring authority when intended; silence does not negate judicial inherent authority.	Silence does not negate judge’s inherent and statutory authority to appoint staff.

City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (discusses implied authority in statutory construction)
Guynes v. Galveston Cty., 861 S.W.2d 861 (Tex. 1993) (commissioners court has broad implied administrative powers but may not usurp duties of other officials)
Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. 1979) (recognizes inherent judicial authority to aid exercise of jurisdiction and administration of justice)
Comm'rs Ct. of Lubbock Cty. v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1971) (court authority to select probation officers)
Abbott v. Pollock, 946 S.W.2d 513 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, writ denied) (principle that elected officers should select their own assistants)
Henry v. Cox, 483 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (addresses scope of judicial administrative authority)