Texas Attorney General Opinion: LO88-134 Page: 4 of 5
5 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:
Honorable Mike Driscoll
December 13, 1988
Page 3
of surplus or salvage property owned by a county. In
defining "surplus property" and "salvage property" the 1987
amendment by the 70th Legislature excluded "items routinely
discarded as waste." By excluding "items routinely
discarded as waste" from property that must be sold under
the competitive bid procedure the Legislature evidenced an
intent that a county should not be burdened with the cost
entailed in the storage and sale of absolutely worthless
items. Prior to the 1987 amendment, article 2372z had only
excluded "waste paper" from the bidding process. The Bill
Analysis to H.B. 646 that resulted in the amendment to
article 2372z at the 70th Legislature contains the following
observations:
This statute was originally enacted in the
67th session to provide an optional method
for a county to dispose of personal property.
The statute refers to personal property other
than wastepaper. Soge counties have aues-
tioned whether this statute requires that all
trash which is not paper be forwarded to the.
county purchasing agent and auctioned to the
highest bidder. This would result in an
extremely high expense to the county and
prove to .be very difficult to administer.
This bill would clarify the statute by
deleting the reference to wastepaper and
excluding items routinely discarded as waste
from the definition of salvage or surplus
ropDertv. (Emphasis added.)
While there is no specific grant of authority for
magistrates to order the destruction of "items routinely
discarded as waste" under article 18.17, the Legislature in
granting a magistrate authority to order the destruction of
property must be presumed to have intended a just and rea-
sonable result. Section 311.021 of the Code Construction
Act. In construing a statute, section 311.023 of the Code
Construction Act provides that "whether or not the statute
is considered ambiguous on its face, a court may consider
. . . laws on the same or similar subjects." While we can
find no authority for a purchasing agent to destroy items
(acquired under article 18.17) he believes to be waste, we
conclude that a magistrate may order items destroyed that
are determined to be of such little value that they are
"routinely discarded as waste." However, if there be any
doubt as to whether an item falls within this category, a
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: LO88-134, text, December 13, 1988; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth276285/m1/4/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.