Texas Attorney General Opinion: GA-0767 Page: 2 of 4
4 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Dr. Carl A. Montoya - Page 2
a meaningless statute. Webb County Appraisal Dist. v. New Laredo Hotel, Inc., 792 S.W.2d 952,
954 (Tex. 1990). In addition, Texas attorneys general have addressed budget approval statutes
governing other entities and have found implicit authority for those entities to disapprove budgets
subject to their approval. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-79 (1983) at 3, MW-15 (1979) at
2, H-908 (1976) at 3. For example, in Attorney General Opinion JM-79, the statute at issue required
an administrator of a hospital district to "prepare an annual budget which shall be ... presented to
the Commissioners Court for final approval." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-79 (1983) at 1, 3. That
opinion concluded that based on the language in the statute the commissioners court was
"empowered to reject any budget submitted." Id. at 3; cf Comm 'rs Court ofHays County v. Dist.
Judge, 506 S.W.2d 630, 635 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (concluding that,
because a separate statute required a specific budget allocation, a commissioners court could reject
a submitted budget only if it was so unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious to amount to an abuse of
discretion). Similarly, in Attorney General Opinion H-908, where a statute required that salaries of
assistant prosecuting attorneys be "fixed by the prosecuting attorney, subject to the approval of the
commissioners court," the opinion concluded that "[t]he commissioners may disapprove the salaries,
and therefore can be said to have veto power over that part of the district attorney's budget." Tex.
Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-908 (1976) at 3; see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-132 (1992) at 4, 6
(explaining that a principal's statutory authority to "approve all teacher and staff appointments" was
"more like a veto power"). We believe the Board similarly has veto power over the Center's budget.
Thus, we conclude that the Board is authorized either to approve or disapprove a particular budget
submitted to it, as long as it ultimately approves a budget each year.
Your second and third questions ask whether the Board has jurisdiction to "advise the Texas
School Safety Center," specifically with regard to the budget and the organization and design of the
Center, and to "approve budgets for programs not required under the Education Code." Request
Letter at 2.
Under the plain language of the statute, the Legislature has given the Board general authority
to advise the Center. TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 37.203(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009) ("The center is
advised by a board of directors ... ."). The Legislature has not otherwise limited the subject matter
of the advice that the Board may offer. We therefore conclude that the Board may offer advice to
the Center, including advice concerning the budget and the organization and design of the Center.
Whether the Board may approve budgets for programs not required under the Education
Code, however, is a separate question that requires further analysis of the Center's authority under
the statute. The Center is a creation of the Legislature, and as such it has only the powers conferred
on it, expressly or impliedly, by the Legislature. State v. Jackson, 376 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Tex. 1964);
see also Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 253 S.W.3d 184, 192-93 (Tex. 2007)
(explaining that a state agency's powers are limited to those expressly conferred or implied and
reasonably necessary to carry out the express responsibilities given to it by the Legislature). The
Legislature's purpose for the Center is "to serve as: (1) a central location for school safety and
security information.. .; (2) a central registry of persons providing school safety and security
consulting services in the state; and (3) a resource for the prevention of youth violence and the
promotion of safety in the state." TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 37.202 (Vernon Supp. 2009). To those(GA-0767)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: GA-0767, text, April 5, 2010; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth275663/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.