Case Information
*1 The Attorrwy General of Texas September 3, 1985 JIM MATTOX Eonorable Jim Yeen, Opinioo Ho. JI+350
suprrrrvr cowl BulldlnO ilocklcy County Att~miey P. 0. Box 1254S Eiockley County Courtthouee Re: Whether a cmmnissloncrs court
Aurtln. TX. 78711-254s P. 0. Box 11 may expend county Telex 9101874+1357 '19336 issueuce by Alcoholic Levellaud, Tuna oppose Telecopier 5121475as5 Beverage Comission of a private
club permit 714 Jackson, Sulle 700 OalkS. TX. 752024506 Dear Mr. Weems: 214174289u
Too aek uhethcr 4S24 Alberta Ave.. sdte Is0 . ~Colmty comlseiouers after having duly El Paso. lx. 799052792 voted OIL a notion To proteet QlY53334s4 the Issuance Of A
Private Club License, A private club to be located In the county wer vhich the said commis- ,Wl rexas, SUllS 700 court presides, acting as a gwexniag HOUslOn. lx. 770023111 body. mry expend and 71Y223sSS expeuses, to go to Austin, Tueo, purpose protesting against issuance of euch SC6 Broadway. Suite private license from the Alcoholic Beverage Lubbock, TX. 79101-2479 CoriW.iOU. SW7476230 for trevel You advice that tbc axpanses 8t issua are and related costs 43W N. Tenlh. !&It. S for selected vitnerrea of county cr(s~~knmrs themelvar McAlI.tl. lx. 7s501.1085 county. 512mS24547
The issuaaee "private club registration permits" is gwerned 200 MIhl Plaza. SUIM 4m by chapter 32 of t!he Alcoholic Beverege Code; vhich vas enacted ae. a San AnIonlo. TX. 792ow797 retadificetioa of prior lev. nonsubstantive Acts 1977. 65th Leg., ch. 512l2254191 194. at 391. 558. Section thereof oets out the qualifications 32.03
for permits, and mction 32.04 describes epplicationr therefor. Under section 11.43. tlm Alcoholic Beverage Cosaission hs discretioosry authority to grant or issue such permite; however. the c&sslou required sec~.ion 11.41(e) to give due consideration ret-ndations OC verious officiels locality for which license is #ought. Cf. V.A.P.C. arts. 666-11. 666-128 (repealed). - Section 11.41 tie) further provides: *2 . (Jn-350)
honorable Jim Uaema - Page 2 If a protest issuance permit agalnait is made to the comi:e~~ion by any of these off leers is found 011 a hearing or flndiog of facta thet isauancc~ tha permit would be iu tbe provisions of conflict vith this code, commission or admjnistrator shall enter an order setting forth the ‘:sasona for refusal.
And section 11.41(b) reads:
(b) In the granting or withholding of a permit to sell alcoholic lwverages at retail. the crrmnis- sioa or administrst~or may give consideration to a recoaaaendation x&a in vriting the coavais- court of the county in which the applicant or by a repre- proposes to condwt his business sentative of the coumission. ar oral testimony at the hearing
Thus, personal appearances is not a prerequisite to consideration by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission of the official ~ views the county coaaaissioners court. Of course, in-person sdvocacy may prove to be a more effective method of persuasion.
The question of whether county funds may he properly expended better advocate the county’li position on such a question is not directly governed by the Alcoholic Beverage Code, but by the statutes and constitutional provisions appertaining to the powers of a coaaaisaioners court. The Teas Constitution provides, in article V, section 18(b) :
The County Mraionero . . . with the County Judge as preaidimg officer, shall cumpose County Commiasionere Court, which shall exercise such powers and ‘iuriadiction over all business, as la cou?erred by this Constitution end laws of 5tatei or aa msy be hereafter prescribed. (Eaphiw;ia added).
Bowever~ the Alcoholic Bevera;ge Code (by requiring that
Beverage Comnission give couaideration the positions local officials) indirectly makes it clear that the matter of recomeanding liquor permits for ostablia%nwnts In a county may properly be con- sidered “county business.” legal baairr for any action by a county cmissioners
Although court must be ultimately fonld in the constitution or the statutes.
Canales v. Laughlin. 214 S.V.:!d 451. 453 (Tex. 1948). where a right conferred or obligations impwed on the couuaissioners it has a
1).
Rooorable Jim Ueew - Pya 3 Anderson v.
broad discretion to accompl.ish the purposes intended.
wood. 1s2 s.u.2d 1084 (Tex. 1941).
We are aware of eo statute l uthoriaes thet specifically incur axpeases for the purpose of opposing a proposed private club registxation pcnalt. We bellevc the provisioo authorizing the Alcoholic Beverage Commission to consider the views of county officers contemplatc,a au opportunity to present such views affectively. If the comiasioners court of Bockley County, in good faith, deems it to be lo the interest of the county to expend county the purpom of presenting those views in persoo or through vitnessca, ve cancat say is without power to do so. See Attorney V.T.C.S. arts. 2350. 61s: 2351. subdlv. 15; 3912k.
General Opinion E-6gd (1976:‘. & Pritchard a Abbott v.~enna.
S.W.2d 333 (Tax. 1961).
SUWMABP wurt deems It to he If a county colsaissionera in interest the. county to do so, it nay expend tr,svel the purpose opposing a* application a private perdit pending before registration Beverage Comnissic~r~.
Very truly you JLb
JIFI MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOMGREEN
First Assistant Attorney Garters1
DAVID R. RICBARDS
Executive Assistant
ROBERT GRAY
Specisl Assistant Attorney General
RICE GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Camsittee
Prepared by Bruce Youngblood
Assistant Attorney General
p.
L Honorable Jim Weema - PII* 4
APPROVED:
OPINION CONNITl’EE
Rick Gilpill, Chairman
Co1111 Carl
Sunna Gnrrirw
Tony Gulllory
Jim Moclllnngcr
Jennifer Riggs
Nnncy Suttoo
Sarah Uoclk
Bruce Youngblood