Could a commissioners court control state Professional Prosecutors Act funds paid to a district attorney, and how could those funds appear in the county budget?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-70: Prosecutor State Funds and County Budgets
Plain-English summary
JM-70 concluded that state money paid to a district attorney under the Professional Prosecutors Act could be used in the prosecutor's sole discretion for authorized purposes. The commissioners court could not control those funds.
"In our opinion the funds received by a district attorney pursuant to the Professional Prosecutors Act may be used in his sole discretion for the purposes authorized under the statute and are not subject to control by the commissioners court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
The county budget could show that state money was available, but could not direct its use or count it in the county-budget total.
"It may show the availability of state funds appropriated to local officials to be used in their discretion, but may not purport to determine their use, or include those amounts in the total budget."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
The county still had to appropriate operating funds for the prosecutor's office at no less than the amount provided on the Act's effective date, except for the county supplement to the district attorney's salary. The commissioners court also retained discretion over lawful amendments reallocating county funds.
"With the exception of the county's supplementation of the district attorney's salary, the county is required to appropriate county funds necessary to operate the prosecutor's office in an amount not less than budgeted by the county on the effective date of the statute, August 27, 1979."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf"Amendments and changes in the county budget for a particular department may be made by the commissioners court in its discretion and independent of a department head so long as the provisions for budget amendments and changes are adhered to."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983. 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.
Common questions
Who controlled state Professional Prosecutors Act funds?
The district attorney controlled their use for purposes authorized by the statute, not the commissioners court.
"[T]he funds received by a district attorney pursuant to the Professional Prosecutors Act may be used in his sole discretion for the purposes authorized under the statute and are not subject to control by the commissioners court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Why did JM-70 place the state funds under the prosecutor's control?
The governing law made the money payable to and usable by the district attorney, while the appropriations act directed payment straight to that official.
"Section 4 of article 332b-4 states that the state funds are payable to the district attorney and are to be used by the district attorney."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf"[P]ayments shall be made directly to district attorney."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Could the county budget suggest how those state funds should be spent?
It could disclose that the funds were available, but could not purport to determine their use or include them in the county-budget total.
"It may show the availability of state funds appropriated to local officials to be used in their discretion, but may not purport to determine their use, or include those amounts in the total budget."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Did the state payment eliminate the county's funding obligation?
No. Apart from the county salary supplement, JM-70 said county operating appropriations could not fall below the amount budgeted when the statute took effect.
"With the exception of the county's supplementation of the district attorney's salary, the county is required to appropriate county funds necessary to operate the prosecutor's office in an amount not less than budgeted by the county on the effective date of the statute, August 27, 1979."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Could Cameron County list some prosecutor expenses under shared headings?
Yes. The opinion approved a format that placed some expenses under general headings shared by county departments and listed other prosecutor expenses separately.
"It is our opinion that this form of a county budget is permissible."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf"The statutes do not require that all of the budgetary items for the prosecutor's office be listed together."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Could a department head veto an amendment that depleted the department's county budget?
No. The commissioners court controlled allocation of county funds and could amend a department's budget without the department head if it followed the governing amendment procedures.
"The discretion with regard to the use and allocation of county funds is vested in the commissioners court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf"Amendments and changes in the county budget for a particular department may be made by the commissioners court in its discretion and independent of a department head so long as the provisions for budget amendments and changes are adhered to."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Background and statutory framework
Cameron County's criminal district attorney asked how the commissioners court could prepare, adopt, and amend the prosecutor's office budget.
"You have requested our opinion regarding the manner in which the commissioners court may prepare, adopt and amend the budget for the county's prosecuting office."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
The Professional Prosecutors Act provided at least $22,500 in state funds for office salaries and expenses, excluding supplementation of the district attorney's own salary, and required an annual sworn spending account to the comptroller.
"Each district attorney governed by this Act shall receive not less than $22,500 from the state to be used by the district attorney to help defray the salaries and expenses of the office but not to be used to supplement the district attorney's salary."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf"Each district attorney shall submit annually a sworn account to the comptroller of public accounts showing how this money was spent during the year."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
The county-budget law required the document to permit a practicable comparison with prior-year expenditures and identify projects and estimated amounts as definitely as possible.
"The budget must also be prepared so as to show as definitely as possible each of the various projects for which appropriations are set up in the budget, and the estimated amount of money carried in the budget for each of such projects."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Holding
"Funds received by prosecuting attorney under the Professional Prosecutors Act are not subject to control or appropriating by the commissioners court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Citations and references
Statutes discussed by JM-70:
- "article 332b-4, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
- "article 332a, section 7, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
- "article 689a-9, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
- "article 689a-11, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
- "article 689a-20, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
- "Acts 1981, 67th Legislature, Appropriations Act, Judiciary Section - Comptroller's Department" Official PDF
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0070
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0070.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
September 19, 1983
Honorable Reynaldo S. Cantu, Jr.
Criminal District Attorney
Cameron County
Hall of Justice
974 E. Harrison Street
Brownsville, Texas 78520
Opinion No. JM-70
Re: County budget for prosecuting attorney's fees
Dear Mr. Cantu:
You have requested our opinion regarding the manner in which the commissioners court may prepare, adopt and amend the budget for the county's prosecuting office. You first ask whether the commissioners court may dictate or control the manner in which the state funds provided for in the Professional Prosecutors Act, article 332b-4, V.T.C.S., are used. This statute provides for state supplementation of salaries and expenses of a district attorney's office. Section 4 provides:
Each district attorney governed by this Act shall receive not less than $22,500 from the state to be used by the district attorney to help defray the salaries and expenses of the office but not to be used to supplement the district attorney's salary. Each district attorney shall submit annually a sworn account to the comptroller of public accounts showing how this money was spent during the year.
Section 3 of the statute permits a commissioners court to provide a county supplement to the district attorney's state salary. Section 6 of the statute provides that
[I]t is the purpose of this Act to increase funds available for use in prosecution. The commissioners court in each county that has a district attorney governed by this Act shall provide the funds necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Act and shall continue to provide funds for the office of district attorney in an amount that is equal to or greater than the amount of funds provided for the office by the county on the effective date of this Act (August 27, 1979). This provision does not apply to local supplementation to the salary of the district attorney.
In our opinion the funds received by a district attorney pursuant to the Professional Prosecutors Act may be used in his sole discretion for the purposes authorized under the statute and are not subject to control by the commissioners court. Section 4 of article 332b-4 states that the state funds are payable to the district attorney and are to be used by the district attorney. See Acts 1981, 67th Leg., Appropriations Act, Judiciary Section - Comptroller's Department, 89 ("payments shall be made directly to district attorney").
You have further asked whether the commissioners court in the adoption of the county budget may reflect a suggested use for the state funds received by a prosecutor pursuant to article 332b-4. It is our opinion that the budgetary statutes permit the commissioners court to determine the use of county funds only. It may show the availability of state funds appropriated to local officials to be used in their discretion, but may not purport to determine their use, or include those amounts in the total budget. See V.T.C.S. art. 689a-9 (budget to cover all proposed expenditures of the county government).
You have also asked whether the commissioners court is required to provide county funds for postage, telephone and other expenses of the district attorney's office which the commissioners court indicates in the county budget will be paid for with state funds. With the exception of the county's supplementation of the district attorney's salary, the county is required to appropriate county funds necessary to operate the prosecutor's office in an amount not less than budgeted by the county on the effective date of the statute, August 27, 1979. See V.T.C.S. art. 332b-4. See also V.T.C.S. art. 332a, §7.
You have also asked whether the budget for Cameron County, relevant portions of which you have furnished us, complies in form to the requirements of the county budget statutes. The budgetary items for the prosecutor's office in Cameron County are provided for either under a general heading which groups various county offices under a single title. For example, under "stationery and forms" is listed the various county departments including the district attorney with a dollar amount appropriated to each department for such use. Other line item expenses of the district attorney's office are budgeted separately from the group listings. It is our opinion that this form of a county budget is permissible. The budget statutes only require that a county budget be prepared
so as to make as clear a comparison as practicable between expenditures included in the proposed budget and actual expenditures for the same or similar purposes for the preceding year. The budget must also be prepared so as to show as definitely as possible each of the various projects for which appropriations are set up in the budget, and the estimated amount of money carried in the budget for each of such projects.
V.T.C.S. art. 689a-9. The statutes do not require that all of the budgetary items for the prosecutor's office be listed together.
In your final question you ask whether a department head has any control over county budget amendments which result in a depletion of his budget. The discretion with regard to the use and allocation of county funds is vested in the commissioners court. V.T.C.S. art. 689a-11. Amendments and changes in the county budget for a particular department may be made by the commissioners court in its discretion and independent of a department head so long as the provisions for budget amendments and changes are adhered to. See V.T.C.S. art. 689a-11 (amendments to original budgets authorized by emergencies); art. 689a-20 (commissioners court may make changes in county budget).
SUMMARY
Funds received by prosecuting attorney under the Professional Prosecutors Act are not subject to control or appropriating by the commissioners court.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by David Brooks
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1983 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.