Can a Texas county move police training funds into its general fund?

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked whether the money the state sends to local law enforcement agencies for officer continuing education, under section 1701.157 of the Occupations Code, can be moved into a county's or city's general fund. The Attorney General concluded that it cannot. The whole structure of the statute points the other way, and its language leaves no room for a different reading.

The funds come from a dedicated state account. Each year the comptroller allocates money from the law enforcement officer standards and education fund account to local agencies, 20 percent split equally and 80 percent based on the number of qualifying licensed peace officer positions. The statute then ties the money down in several ways. It allocates the money to the agencies themselves, not to the county or city. It says an agency may use the money "only as necessary" for the continuing education of licensed officers or for necessary training of full-time support personnel. It bars an agency from using the money even to replace recurring training funds the county or municipality already provides. And it requires the agency head to keep a detailed written record of receipts and spending, with the funds subject to audit by the comptroller and the state auditor.

Reading those provisions together, the opinion concluded the local governmental body has essentially no budgetary or supervisory control over this money. It noted that a 1997 amendment had even deleted an earlier requirement that counties and cities conduct their own audit of the funds, further signaling that the money is not theirs to manage. Because the statute vests control in the local law enforcement agencies and permits spending only for continuing education and necessary training, the funds may not be diverted to a county or municipal general fund.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 1701 of the Occupations Code governs the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. Section 1701.156 establishes the law enforcement officer standards and education fund account within the state's general revenue fund. Section 1701.157 directs the comptroller, by March 1 each year, to allocate the prior year's deposits in that account to local law enforcement agencies for continuing-education expenses: 20 percent in equal shares and 80 percent by a fixed amount per qualifying position (a position reserved for someone who is licensed under the chapter, works as a peace officer at least 32 hours a week on average, and is paid at least minimum wage with the benefits offered to peace officers).

The restrictions that decided the question are in the later subsections. Subsection (c) requires the head of the agency to keep a complete and detailed written record of money received and spent, and makes the money subject to audit by the comptroller (receipts) and the state auditor (expenditures). Subsection (d) limits use of the money to what is necessary for continuing education of licensees or necessary training of full-time, fully paid support personnel, as the agency head determines. Subsection (e) bars an agency from using the money to replace training funds the county or municipality provides on a recurring basis. The opinion also pointed to a 1997 amendment (codified as a change to former Government Code section 415.0845) that removed a prior local-audit requirement.

On method, the opinion applied the rule that when a statute's language is neither ambiguous, unreasonable, nor unconstitutional, courts look to that language for legislative intent, citing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Evans and the Texas Supreme Court in Jones v. Del Andersen & Associates. Because the words vest control in local agencies and confine spending to continuing education and necessary training, diversion to a general fund was not permitted.

Common questions

Can a county or city sweep police continuing-education money into its general fund?
No. The opinion concluded that section 1701.157 money cannot be diverted to a county or municipal general fund.

Who controls this money, the agency or the local government?
The law enforcement agency. The statute allocates the funds to the agency, requires the agency head to keep records, and subjects the money to state audit, leaving the county or city essentially no control.

What can the money actually be spent on?
Only what is necessary for the continuing education of licensed officers or necessary training of full-time, fully paid support personnel, as the agency head determines.

Can the money at least offset training the city or county already pays for?
No. Subsection (e) bars using the money to replace training funds the county or municipality provides on a recurring basis.

How is the money divided among agencies?
The comptroller allocates 20 percent in equal shares to all local agencies and 80 percent by a fixed amount for each qualifying licensed peace officer position.

Citations

Statutes: Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 1701.156 and 1701.157, including subsections (a), (c), (d), and (e) (Vernon 2000); former Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 415.0845. The opinion also cited the 1997 amendment, Act of May 23, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 915.

Cases: Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc); Jones v. Del Andersen & Assoc., 539 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. 1976).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0190
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2000/jc0190.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

March 10, 2000

The Honorable Frank Madla
Chair, Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Texas State Senate
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711

Opinion No. JC-0190

Re: Whether funds allocated by section 1701.157 of the Occupations Code to local law enforcement agencies for continuing education of local law enforcement officers may be diverted to the general fund of a county or municipality (RQ-0125-JC)

Dear Senator Madla:

You have requested our opinion as to whether funds allocated to law enforcement agencies by section 1701.157 of the Occupations Code, for continuing education of local law enforcement officers, may be diverted to the general fund of a county or municipality. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that they may not be so diverted.

Chapter 1701 of the Occupations Code provides for the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. Section 1701.156 thereof establishes "the law enforcement officer standards and education fund account . . . in the general revenue fund [of the State Treasury]." TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 1701.156 (Vernon 2000). Section 1701.157 provides, in relevant part:

(a) Not later than March 1 of each calendar year, the comptroller shall allocate money deposited during the preceding calendar year in the general revenue fund to the credit of the law enforcement officer standards and education fund account for expenses related to the continuing education of persons licensed under this chapter as follows:

(1) 20 percent of the money is allocated to all local law enforcement agencies in this state in equal shares; and

(2) 80 percent of the money is allocated to all local law enforcement agencies in this state in a share representing a fixed amount for each position in the agency, as of January 1 of the preceding calendar year, that is reserved to a person who:

(A) is licensed under this chapter;

(B) works as a peace officer on the average of at least 32 hours a week; and

(C) is compensated by a political subdivision of this state at least at the minimum wage and is entitled to all employee benefits offered to a peace officer by the political subdivision.

(c) The head of a law enforcement agency shall maintain a complete and detailed written record of money received and spent by the agency under this section. Money received under this section is subject to audit by the comptroller. Money spent under this section is subject to audit by the state auditor.

(d) A local law enforcement agency shall use money received under Subsection (a) only as necessary to ensure the continuing education of persons licensed under this chapter or to provide necessary training, as determined by the agency head, to full-time fully paid law enforcement support personnel in the agency.

(e) A local law enforcement agency may not use money received under Subsection (a) to replace funds that are provided to the agency by the county or municipality having jurisdiction over the agency on a recurring basis for training law enforcement officers and support personnel.

Id. § 1701.157. You ask whether the above described funds may be transferred to the general fund of a county or municipality.

Subsection (a) of section 1701.157 declares that the money is allocated to local "law enforcement agencies." Id. § 1701.157(a). Subsection (d) makes clear that the funds at issue may be used by a law enforcement agency "only as necessary" for the "continuing education" of licensees or for "necessary training" for a law enforcement agency's "support personnel." Id. § 1701.157(d) (emphasis added). Subsection (e) provides that the funds may not even be used to replace training funds furnished by the city or county. Id. § 1701.157(e). Furthermore, subsection (c), in requiring "the head of a law enforcement agency" to maintain a "detailed written record" of receipts and expenditures, and in permitting the audit of these moneys by state officials, suggests that the local governmental body has little budgetary or supervisory control over these funds whatsoever. Id. § 1701.157(c). In fact, a 1997 amendment to section 1701.157's statutory predecessor deletes the previous requirement that counties and municipalities conduct their own audit of these funds. See Act of May 23, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 915, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2901, 2902 (codified as an amendment to former TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 415.0845); see also SENATE COMM. ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. Comm. Substitute S.B. 187, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997).

Such language leaves no room for construction. When the language of a statute is neither ambiguous nor unreasonable nor unconstitutional, the courts look to the language itself to determine the legislature's intent. Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc). See also Jones v. Del Andersen & Assoc., 539 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. 1976). Since the language of section 1701.157 vests control of the funds in local law enforcement agencies and permits the use of the funds only for "continuing education" and "necessary training," it follows that the funds may not be diverted to the general fund of a county or municipality.

SUMMARY

Funds allocated by section 1701.157 of the Occupations Code to local law enforcement agencies for continuing education of local law enforcement officers may not be diverted to the general fund of a county or municipality.

Very truly yours,

JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

ANDY TAYLOR
First Assistant Attorney General

CLARK KENT ERVIN
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

ELIZABETH ROBINSON
Chair, Opinion Committee

Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee