Legislative Services

The Texas Association of Counties has highlighted recent Attorney General Opinions and Requests for Opinions of interest to counties. Summaries below are republished directly from opinion letters issued by the Office of the Attorney General without substantive editing.

Attorney General Opinions

KP-0490: Questions the authority of the Texas Supreme Court to require district and county clerks to integrate their case management systems with the proprietary re:SearchTX database (RQ-0556-KP). The opinion finds the Texas Supreme Court has authority under Government Code section 74.024 to order county and district clerks to integrate their case management systems with re:SearchTX, the Court’s approved electronic filing system. The Court’s order is also within the scope of the judicial power to implement rules for efficient and uniform administration of the various courts; thus, it does not violate the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.

KP-0491: Questions the authority of a county commissioners court to enact an order penalizing a dog owner for a public nuisance due to the dog’s excessive barking (RQ-0557-KP). The opinion provides that a county commissioners court does not possess authority to enact an order penalizing a dog owner for a “public nuisance” due to the dog’s excessive barking where, as here, no statute confers such authority to the commissioners court.

KP-0492: Questions the authority of a county commissioners court to create a new legal-support position and transfer funding or positions away from the county attorney’s office (RQ-0561-KP). The opinion provides that a commissioners court has authority to delegate to any appropriate county official a function that is not a core duty of another county official. To the extent the duties of the contract and procurement specialist position are not core duties of the Aransas County Attorney’s Office, the position and its associated funding may be transferred from the County Attorney to another appropriate county office. The specific office to which this position and funding may be reassigned is a determination for the Commissioners Court in the first instance, as long as other conflicts are not created with the transfer of duties. A commissioners court has authority to hire legal counsel to assist with county responsibilities so long as the statutory duties of other county officials are not thereby usurped. To the extent it does not usurp or interfere with the statutory duties of other county officials, including the County Attorney, the Aransas Commissioners Court is authorized to create a new attorney position concerning the affairs of Aransas County. To the extent it does not usurp or interfere with the County Attorney’s core duties, the Commissioners Court has, in some circumstances, authority through the exercise of its budgetary power to defund an existing civil attorney position to finance the new attorney position.

KP-0493: Asks whether commissary funds under Local Government Code § 351.0415 can be used to hire a full-time employee at a privately operated jail (RQ-0564-KP). The opinion finds that Local Government Code section 351.0415 authorizes the sheriff or the sheriff’s designee to use commissary proceeds only for the enumerated statutory purposes. To the extent the county commissioners’ court would be using the commissary proceeds for the salary of a particular county employee who will staff a county jail operated by a private vendor, such an expenditure would not be permissible under section 351.0415. Assuming the sheriff or sheriff’s designee would use the commissary proceeds, the question of whether those proceeds may be used for the salary of that particular county employee pursuant to the enumerated statutory purposes detailed in subsections 351.0415(c)(1) and (c)(5) requires the resolution of fact questions that are beyond the scope of this opinion.

KP-0495: Asks questions relating to the authorities and obligations regarding phone-card sales at a county jail (RQ-0570-KP). The opinion finds that revenue from phone cards sales derived from the exercise of inmate telephone privileges provided under the Texas Commission on Jail Standards’ rule concerning inmate telephone plans must be deposited in the county’s general fund. Revenue derived from the purchase of phone cards as a jail commissary item, bearing no correlation to the provision of inmate telephone privileges, are commissary funds under the exclusive control of the sheriff. It follows that phone card revenue must be deposited in the general fund where the ordering, fulfillment, and fund allocation of phone cards are separate from the commissary operation. The separate treatment of inmate commissary and telephone privileges could result in a situation where some telephone service or item is offered under both privileges. The Cherokee County Commissioners Court may reinstate the PIN debit system, through its contracting and jail authority, so long as the chosen method complies with the requirements in the Commission’s rule concerning inmate telephone privileges.

Requests for an Attorney General Opinion

RQ-0601-KP: Delta County Attorney. Questions whether the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has enforcement authority over waterway discharge by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

RQ-0602-KP: Chambers County Attorney. Asks whether “advanced recycling facilities” engage in “recycling” under the Texas Health and Safety Code.

RQ-0603-KP: Washington County Attorney. Questions relating to the interpretation of Transportation Code 687.072 requirements for a “junked vehicle” to constitute a public nuisance.