Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1978 )

The Attorney Geqeral of Texas September 5, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General Honorable George N. Rodriguez, Jr. Opinion No. H- 12 37 County Attorney Rl Paso County Re: Whether a county may pay Room 201 City-County Building claims for supplies and services Rl Paso, Texas 79901 rendered to the-Sheriff’s Depart- ment without a purchase order when the commissioners court has issued e written order that .‘theclaimbepaid. Dear Mr. Rodriguez: You have requested our opinion on a question involving payment of a claim for supplies and services rendered to the county. You state that a number of vendors provided supplies and services to the sheriff’s department, but failed to comply with article 1580, Y.T.C.S., as oooatmdwwsulmnz amended, Acts l975,64th Deg., ch. 294, S 1, et 748, applicable to all counties Lubmdl.lx.7mol with a population in excess of 74,000. Article 1580 establishes the county oow4?-oza purt?hasing agent, an officer not under the supervision of the commissioners court, as the proper party to contract for all county supplies and services except those required to be let on competitive bid. The statute prohibits any other perkon from entering into such contracts and directs the county auditor not to drew warrants “for any purchases except by such agent and those made by competitive bid.” In the situation you pose, the commissioners court has by written order directed payment of the claims, but the auditor has refused to comply. We considered an almost identical question in Attorney General Opinion I-I-482 (19741,and concluded that, where a contract fails to comply with article 1580 because the county purchasing agent is not a party thereto, the county auditor is prohibited from drawing a warrant for the contract. The authority of the commissioners court to regulate county fiscal matters has been circumscribed by article 1580, and since the court was powerless to make the contract initially, it was equally powerless to ratify it. In our opinion, the same result is applicable here. The commissioners court is not authorized to order payment of a claim under a contract made in P. 4934 Honorable George N. Rodriguez, Jr. - Page 2 (H-1237) violation of article 1580, and the auditor is prohibited from paying such a claim. But see Wyatt Metal & Boiler Works v. Pennin Count& 111S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana 1937, writ dism’d); Attorney General Opinion H-482 (1974). SUMMARY The commissioners court is not authorized to direct payment of e claim under a contract which contravenes article 1580, and the county auditor is prohibited from paying such a claim. Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: Gpiion Committee m p. 4935