HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-15-0630PM-Specialh
•
i
~ ..ED
:5N~`f 1 1 PM It 22
CLM
BR.AZOS COUNTY BRAZ C YU N Y E OURi
BRYAN. 7EXA6 8Y OEPUTY
AGENDA
BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING
THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON MONDAY,
MAY 15, 1995 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMISSIONERS' COURTROOM OF THE
BRAZOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 300 EAST 26TH STREET, SUITE 115, BRYAN,
TEXAS.
1. Invocation - Commissioner Walker.
2. Pledge of Allegiance - Commissioner Walker.
3. Citizen input and/or concerns. At this time, the Judge will open the floor to citizens
wishing to address the Court on county-related issues not scheduled on the agenda. Please
limit subject matters to five minutes. The Commissioners will receive the information,
conduct research into the matter, and/or place the matter on a future agenda for
discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; therefore, please give your name and
address for the record.)
Consider and take action on agenda items 4 - 16:
4. Request by Economic Development Corporation to place city managers on the EDC Board
in an ex-officio capacity.
5. Payment to Batson Tires for tires.
6. Allocation of telephone lines to Community Supervision and Corrections Department.
7. Allocation of position from Constable, Precinct 7 to Sheriffs Office.
8. Request for transfer of funds to reimburse the Commissary Fund.
9. Request by Precinct 2 Constable for addition of two non-paid regular deputy constables.
10. Award of Bid No. 95-017, Electronic Reporting of Texas Department of Public Safety
Criminal Justice Information.
11. Request from Wellborn Water Supply Corp. for a 2.0" service bore in the right-0f--way
of Koppe Bridge Road approximately 1,565 feet from its intersection with Batts Ferry
Road. Site is located in Precinct 1.
12. Request from Wickson Creek Special Utility District for a 2.0" service bore in the right-
of-way of Steep Hollow Circle approximately 890 feet from its intersection with FM
1179. Site is located in Precinct 3.
VOA ~ pqp
i
r
i
i
t
1
F
k
i
i
Commissioners Court Meeting Agenda, Monday, May 15, 1995
13. Request from Wickson Creek Special Utility District for a 2.0" service bore in the right-
of-way of Bickham Cemetary Road approximately 2300' from its intersection with Francis
Road for water line installation. Site is located in Precinct 2.
14. Budget amendment 94/95-17.
15. Request by Audit Review Committee to affirm and implement recommendations by
County Auditor to correct internal deficiencies as outlined by Ingram, Wallis & Company.
16. Personnel Change of Status.
17. Call for citizen input and/or concerns.
18. Consider and take action on payment of claims.
19. Adjourn.
The building is wheelchair st sible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for
sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make atrartgemetits,
call (409) 361-4102.
voi..i~LPna4.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
SPECIAL MEETING
•
MAY 15, 1995
A special meeting of the Commissioners' Court of Brazos
County, Texas was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom in the
Courthouse in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas, beginning at 9:00
a.m. on Monday, May 15, 1995, with the following members of
the Court present:
Alvin W. Jones, County Judge, Presiding; .
Gary Norton, Commissioner of Precinct 1;
Sandie Walker, Commissioner of Precinct 2;
Randy Sims, Commissioner of Precinct 3;
Carey Cauley, Jr., Commissioner of Precinct 4;
Mary Ann Ward, County Clerk.
The following citizens and officials were in attendance:
•
Ruth McLeod
Susan Gandy
John Reynolds
Cheryl Turney
Kay Hamilton
Richard Vance
Bobby Riggs
Arlene Parchman
Executive Assistant
Secretary to County Judge
Auditor
Auditor's Office
Treasurer
County Engineer
Sheriff
Community Supervision
Commissioner Walker gave the invocation and led the
pledge of allegiance.
There was no citizen's input.
The first matter for consideration by the Court was a
request submitted by the Economical Development Corporation
for approval to place city managers on the EDC Board in an ex-
officio capacity. On motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by
Commissioner Cauley, the Court voted unanimously to approve
the request of the EDC to place city managers on the EDC Board
in an ex-officio capacity.
The Court next considered a payment to Batson Tire and
Auto Center. This is for the purchase of tires that the Road
C7
and Bridge department can not account for nor can they locate
them. The Road and Bridge Department has contacted the Bryan
Police Department and made a report of the incident. On
motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner
Walker, the Court voted unanimously to pay the invoice from
VO S PAGE
k
Commissioners Court meeting May 15, 1995
Batson Tire and Auto Center. All future purchases of tires
will be directed through Jerry Cotrone at the Road and Bridge
Department.
The next matter for consideration was a request for
additional telephone lines for the Community Supervision and
Corrections Department. Arlene Parchman, the Director of the
department, informed the Court of the need for eight (8) phone
lines for her department. She explained that her officers
must share offices as well as telephones because of a shortage
of available space. On motion by Commissioner Norton,
seconded by Commissioner Cauley, the Court voted unanimously
to approve the request for additional telephone lines for the
Community Supervision and Corrections Department. commis-
sioner Norton commented that this would make it more difficult
to get an outside line.
The Court next considered the transfer of a position from
Constable Precinct 7 to the Sheriff's Department. This was
requested because of the transfer of Litter/Traffic
Enforcement from the office of Constable Precinct 7 to the
Sheriff's office. On motion by the County Judge, seconded by
Commissioner Walker, the Court voted unanimously to abolish
one deputy position. in the office of Constable Precinct 7,
transfer the funds to the Sheriff's Department, create a new
non paid temporary position in the Sheriff's office,
transfering Deputy Maddox to the temporary position thus
freeing up a full time deputy's position for Litter/Traffic
Enforcement and abolish one (1) clerk position in the-office
of Constable Precinct 7.
The next matter before the Court was a request for the
transfer of funds to reimburse the Inmate Commissary Fund.
Monies from the inmate commissary fund were used for
expenditures for a deceased inmate's relatives that came into
town during the week of inquiry. The monies should have come
out of the general fund. Commissioner Walker moved to
reimburse the inmate commissary fund from the general fund for
VO L _PAOE,Agf~~
c
Ir
Commissioners Court meeting May 15, 1995
•
the expense. Commissioner Norton seconded the motion.
Commissioners Norton, Walker and Cauley voted "Aye".
Commissioner Sims voted "No". The motion carried.
On motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by
Commissioner Cauley, the Court voted unanimously to approve
the request of Constable Precinct 2 for the addition of two
non-paid regular deputy constables.
The Court next considered awarding bid no. 95-017 for the
electronic reporting of Texas Department of Public SaTety
Criminal Justice Information. Cheryl Turney, Purchasing
Agent, informed the Court that only one proposal had been
received and that cost was approximately $56,000.00. She also
went on to say that grant funds rather than county dollars
were involved but that the funds had to be encumbered by May
31, 1995 or otherwise the County would lose them. On motion
by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Cauley, the
Court voted unanimously to accept the only proposal submitted.
The Court next considered the request from Wellborn Water
Supply Corporation to place a service bore in the right-of-way
of Koppee Bridge Road approximately 1,565 feet from its
intersection. The site is located in Precinct 1. The County
Engineer stated that all appeared to be in order and
recommended approval. On motion by Commissioner Norton,
seconded by Commissioner Cauley, the Court voted unanimously
to approve the request of Wellborn Water Supply Corporation
and authorized the installation. A copy of the request is
attached hereto.
The Court next considered the request from Wickson Creek
Special Utility District to place a 2.0 inch service bore in
the right-of-way of Steep Hollow Circle approximately 890 feet
from its intersection with FM 1179. The site is located in
Precinct 3. The County Engineer stated that all appeared to
be in order and recommended approval. On motion by
Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner Norton, the Court
voted unanimously to approve the request of Wickson Creek
VOL S PA0&9._
Commissioners Court meeting May 15, 1995
i
i
E,
k
Special Utility District and authorized the installation. A
copy of the request is attached hereto.
The Court proceeded to consider another request from
Wickson Creek Special Utility District to.place a 2.0 inch
service bore in the right-of-way of Bickham Cemetery Road
approxi-mately 2,300 feet from its intersection with Francis
Road for a water line installation. The site is located in
Precinct 2. The County Engineer stated that all appeared to
be in order and recommended approval. On motion by
Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Cauley, the
Court voted unanimously to approve the request of Wickson
Creek Special Utility District and authorized the
installation. A copy of the request is attached hereto.
The Court next considered Budget Amendment #94/95-17,
which would reallocate funds budgeted for various departments
including the County Extension Office to amend unemployment
insurance for the quarter ended March 31, 1995. On motion by
Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner Norton, the Court
voted unanimously to approve the budget amendment as
submitted, a copy of which is attached hereto.
The next matter before the Court was a recommendation by
the Audit Review Committee. Commissioner Sims informed the
Court that the committee met and voted to approve the
responses to the outside auditor. The County Auditor
explained the responses to the nepotism issue stating that the
county had no control over this except in the budgetary
process. On motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by
Commissioner Norton, the Court voted unanimously to approve
the responses to the outside auditor and implement the
recommendations of the County Auditor.
vo pAO~ o
1
t~
I
r
iCommissioners Court meeting May 15, 1995
The Court proceeded to consider the change of status of
the following employees.
NAME DEPARTMENT REASON
• McAlexander, P. Brazos Center New Emp Temp
Sawyer, Gary Bldg. Maintenance Termination
Wolcott, Rebecca District Clerk New Emp Temp
Garza; Reymundo Road & Bridge Termination
Greig, Fred Jr. Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
Gravett, Sean Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
Sell, Matt B. Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
Bailey, Cedric L. Sheriff Office Termination
Williams, Robert Sheriff Office New Employee
Burt, Amy Tax Office Reg Position
Crutchfield, R. Road & Bridge New Emp Temp
on motion by Commissioner Sims, seconded by Commissioner
Cauley, the Court voted unanimously to approve the changes as
submitted.
There was no citizens input.
The Court next considered the following Claims as
submitted by the County Treasurer for payment:
95-000106 Through 95-000409
• On motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commis-
sioner Walker, the Court voted unanimously to approve the
Claims as submitted.
The County Judge made the following announcements:
1. Meeting at the Brazos Center on May 17, 1995
2. Need to discuss incentive package/tax
abatement
3. A budget work shop will be held the last
week in May
4. Juvenile Detention Center update
Commissioner Norton told the Court that he felt the
following items needed to be considered as soon as possible:
1. The Courthouse annex/substation
t 2. Greens Prairie Road extension from Texas
Avenue to Highway 30
Commissioner Walker announced that a U. S. Marshall would
be here on Tuesday, May 22, 1995 to look at courthouse
security.
The County Judge announced a workshop session on Monday,
•
i
May 21, 1995 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the following items:
1. The Courthouse annex/substation
2. Greens Prairie Road extension from Texas
Avenue to Highway 30
V0 - -PAGRAq/
samob
Commissioners Court meeting May 15, 1995
There being no further business to come before the Court,
the meeting was adjourned.
t
The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court meeting
held May 15, 1995 have been examined and are approved in open
Court this the day of 19_M, in
Bryan, Brazos County, Texas.
r~
u
a
t
is
l
i
6,4L 531r~- -
A v W. one
County Judge
Sandie alke
Commissioner, Precinct 2
Mel? Ca ey, Jr.
Commis ner, Prec• 4
-1~ "-02-~
Gary No n
Commiss ner, Precinct 1
Randy ims
Comm' sioner, Precinct 3
"aV714Wi
MaryfAnn Ward
County Clerk
VOL-~PAGXja.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
BRAZOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
BRYAN, TEXAS 77803
Formal notice Is he,,((eb given that pplicant) i~I(hor11 wu~t,e.Y proposes
to place (ty e) V_ i ems. 06 %r within the right-of-way of (roadl
r Ano in Brazos County, Texas as follows:
The location or description of the ro osed installation is more fulI
P P y shown by
copies of the drawings attached to this notice.
understand and agree that:
1. The County Engineer must be notified 72 hours prior to the beginning
of construction in order that they might be on hand to designate the actual
location of the installation.
2. That all damage to the roadways and right-of-ways will be repaired to
their original condition to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
3. That Brazos County reserves the right to require Applicant to relocate
or lower any such line at no cost to Brazos County, should same become
necessary due to widening or lowering, or other alteration of the roadway
or right-of-way.
4. That Brazos County is in no way responsible for any damage that might
occur to any existing utility lines in the right-of-way.
5. That the line will be constructed and maintained on the County right-of-
way in accordance with governing laws.
6. That the line or lines will be constructed no less than forty-eight inches
(48') lower than the center of the roadway whether there is, or is not, a
borrow ditch.
7. That all sites will be barricaded during the construction period.
Cppstruqtion of this line wil begin on or after (date) 4 --'-Bay of
APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS'
COURT ON:
IT ' AYA Y
Date `
Alvin W. Jones
County Judge
I-
VOt,_a~PAO-tA
b~
• j
Q
N\
R.O.W
s
IN -~j
Y' ROAD BORE
VOA PAGE-414--
0
jfEW DRIVEJ_
KOPPE BRIDGE ROAD 1565' FROM INTERSECTION OF
2 0' BATTS FERRY ROAD
PROPOSED BORE--- h
R.O.W.
LMT94G WATER LINE
i
r
rf
,
,
t
t
t
REQUEST FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
BRAZOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
BRYAN, TEXAS 77803
Formal notice Is hereby given that (applicant) Wickson Creek, s6.11.D. proposes
to place a (type) water line N*mlhe right-of-way of (road)-
Steephollow Circle Dth Brazos County, Texas as follows:
The location or description of the proposed installation is more fully shown by 3
copies of the drawings attached to this notice.
I understand and agree that:
1. The County Engineer must be notified 72 hours prior to the beginning
of construction in order that they might be on hand to designate the actual
location of the installation.
2. That all damage to the roadways and right-of-ways will be repaired to
their original condition to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
3. That Brazos County reserves the right to require Applicant to relocate
or lower any such line at no cost to Brazos County, should same become
necessary due to widening or lowering, or other alteration of the roadway
or right-of-way.
4. That Brazos County is in no way responsible for any damage that might
occur to any existing utility lines in the right-of-way.
5. That the line will be constructed and maintained on the County right-of-
way in accordance with governing laws.
6. That the line or lines will be constructed no less than forty-eight inches
(48°) lower than the center of the roadway whether there is, or is not, a
borrow ditch.
7. That all sites will be barricaded during the construction period.
Construction of this line will begin on or after (date) 15th day of
May , 19 95
(.fLar
Firm: Wictj
on Creek Special Utility District
By: /.I !C dew
Title: General Manager
Address: P . O. Box 4756
Bryan, Texas 77805-4756
Phone: 409-589-3030
APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS'
COURT ON:
MA y- Qr
Date
Alvin W. Jones
County Judge .
i
'A V
}
t
VOL T4_..PAQE14..._.
THE FOLLOWING
DOCUMENT
IS THE BEST IMAGE
POSSIBLE
DUE TO
THE POOR QUALITY
OF THE ORIGINAL
t
1
t,
t.~
9.
',rcl ~(~t•, •F ,
CO P
F Trgr l
er
e
St ~1bw Cyr ;
i
139 j o. i 7 q 2
.
r •
Pf0 .q1 '
I ~ '
MQ3er
TQwi I C ;
- 0 E c
I T
1 L
I E
f hol lam t cc.la., c', (v0 R.o.~ .
?o d
Pase road bo~¢.
I
I '
~SFiN Wafer 1.~ng, - - - - - - - - - - -
r r '
' to o
S r
Y
r
10
F
e
e
road boi-Q.
~ r a.a~ a
opoS
a 'r •
ec d
I
I
0fac Owtler I. CHarlas L& 6ss
u) C CcAG O
r,
4eaphalio
rr►
REQUEST FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
BRAZOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
BRYAN, TEXAS 77803
Formal notice Is hereby given that (applicant) Wick son Creek s _ u _ n _ proposes
to place a (type) water line M the right-of-way of (roadl
Bickham Cemetary Rd. In Brazos County, Texas as follows:
The location or description of the proposed installation is more fully shown by 3
copies of the drawings attached to this notice.
I understand and agree that:
1. The County Engineer must be notified 72 hours prior to the beginning
of construction in order that they might be on hand to designate the actual
location of the installation.
2. That all damage to the roadways and right-of-ways will be repaired to
their original condition to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
3. That Brazos County reserves the right to require Applicant to relocate
or lower any such line at no cost to Brazos County, should same become
necessary due to widening or lowering, or other alteration of the roadway
or right-of-way.
4. That Brazos County is in no way responsible for any damage that might
occur to any existing utility lines in the right-of-way.
5. That the line will be constructed and maintained on the County right-of-
way in accordance with governing laws.
6. That the line or lines Will be constructed no less than forty-eight inches
(48") lower than the center of the roadway whether there is, or is not, a
borrow ditch.
7. That all sites will be barricaded during the construction period.
Construction of this line will begin on or after (date) 20th day of
March -.19 95 .
Firm: Wicks
_ pn Creek Speqial Utility District
By: -e
Title: General Manager
Address: P. o. Box 4756
Bryan, Texas 77805
Phone: 409-589-3030
APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS'
COURT ON:
Date
Alv7t W. Jones
County Judge
0, ~a 5
. 03
THE FOLLOWING
DOCUMENT
IS THE BEST IMAGE
POSSIBLE
DUE TO
THE POOR QUALITY
OF THE ORIGINAL
J
~
t ~r
~
r
4•Yrrvfu• uef•✓.~.~~+ro~•er~--.ter ~..s r-i.rw~~.-~r~<-~wa~.-•• y....~ - ~
T •
J~ +
s
o~
03
v a o~ L-t r~- r d
0
4D
• _ ..n - ~ ~ . -,K. - - - -4- _ . _ ~ . -~„_=-T ..i"_-..~~..-~_..- ....V..:e..l.l ~..:.a.ul:a.. - - "r:r.~.r~r:~~•~%.!•i - -
• I
ILI
XX/
l O
n
`L
ct-
C~/ v► U _
C8
~w 3 v 0 a a, oc c~
0 --r4
- N
cL`DN -~O A
o
o
J~
.O •vJ
J
V
~
C~
~
~
11
;owe
r- r
O o %A V-
O
3
o N~ 1
a
o v►1-
X11
O
CDO
Ci
J.
J
D
cQ;
s'
v~~ vo
i
~
t
of
!
V~
t
G
r
r
s
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
BUDGET AMENDMENT(S) FOR THE 1994-1995 BUDGET YEAR
NO. 94/95-17
On this the 15th day of May 1995 at a special meeting of the
Commissioners' Court, the following members were present:
i
r
t
h
f
Alvin W. Jones, County Judge, Presiding
Gary Norton, Commissioner, Precinct 1;
Sandie Walker, Commissioner, Precinct 2;
Randy Sims, Commissioner, Precinct 3;
Carey Cauley, Commissioner, Precinct 4;
Mary Ann Ward, County Clerk.
The following proceedings were held:
THAT WHEREAS, on May 15, 1995, the Court heard and approved a
budget amendment for the 1994-1995 budget year for Brazos County,
Texas.
WHEREAS, an expenditure is necessary due to the necessity to
meet unusual and unforeseen conditions which could not be
reasonably included in the original budget adopted September 8,
1994 the following amendment(s) to the original are hereby
authorized, as described on the attached 1 page(s).
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this the 15th day of May 1995
THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.
By: Alvin W. Jones, County. Judge
Original: County Clerk's Office and attached to the original
budget
Copies: County Auditor
County Treasurer
Commissioners' Court Minutes
Budget-Amendment File
t,
5
VOd PAGE
M .
-L J& 1
•
s
c
!
!
•
•
Budget
Amend. No. 94-95-17
FUND
DEPT
ACCOUNT 1
ACCOUNT NAME
INCREASE
(DECREASE)
~ General
Tax Office
130001-539000
-
Unemployment -
Insurance
247
3
-3,247)
An
03
S.O. Jail
280020-539000
Unemployment
Insurance
,
045
4
Tr
(
Dist Clerk
200001-539000
Unemployment
Insurance
,
585
fr
~
D.A.
190001-539000
Unemployment
Insurance
69
to
Auditor
160001-539000
Unemployment
Insurance
056
6
de
S.O.
280001-539000
Unemployment
Insurance
,
169
Co Agent
370001-539000
Unemployment
Insurance
10
924)
In
000000-460550
Other Miscellaneous
250
1
,
re
Comm Court
110015-611300
370001-802850
Contingency
Equipment - Office
,
(1,250)
Tr
e
Co Agent
fr
O
**INC. TO DEPT
BUDGET
;0
t0
Q
f
t
1
1
t
1
Commissioners court meeting May 15, 1995
1
i
March 31, 1995
i
4OWM060 OFFICE
4=7M74W COURTHOUSE
.091861.=6 FAX
JoHN T. REnvows
COUNTY AUDITOR
BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
To: Members of the Audit Committee
Brazos County, Texas
From: John Reynolds
Brazos County
Re: Response To Ingrain, Wallis & Company Internal Control Evaluation
And Comments
zoo EAW 20h STRIMT
SURE Mu
BRVAK TEXAS 7M=
The external auditors, Ingrain, Wallis & Company, issued an internal control letter in
conjunction with the firm's evaluation of the County's general purpose financial
statements. The following represents the comments of the firm and each comment is
followed by a response and related recommendation.
Treasurer's Office
Comment: Cash Handling and Cash Recording - the same person receives incoming
checks and cash for deposit, and also records the actual cash receipts in the
system.
Cash Recording & Bank Reconciliation - the same employee records
receipts and performs the bank reconciliation.
•f
Response: Currently, one employee in the County Treasurer's office has handled the
above cited functions. This situation has been allowed to continue due to
the fact that for the most part the Treasurer's office handles very little
actual "cash receipts". The majority of the receipts rendered through the
Treasurer's office are funds in the form of checks, and usually the
rendering party (another County or State office) does not request a receipt.
This procedure is poor internal control, and should be strengthened.
It is proposed that the Treasurer designate one employee to perform the
actual receipting function. A second employee would then be responsible
for the recording of the receipt. Either employee could then be responsible
for the bank reconciliation. The auditor's office would still be responsible
for reviewing all daily receipts and month end bank reconciliations.
VOL s PAGE d-Q-9-.J
I
r~
P
Justice of the Peace Offices
Jail Commis_c9a
Comment: Cash Handling and Cash Reconciliation - several employees have access
to the cash drawer, therefore, no responsibility for cash shortages can be
determined. The cash reconciliation is also performed by one of the
employees who has access to the cash drawer. Ideally, each employee
should have a separate cash drawer or another method of cash
accountability.
Response: The situation as outlined does exist for the most part within each of the
Justice's office and within the Commissary account. The ideal situation
would be to have separate employees available to perform the separate
functions; i.e. cash receipts, recordation, making the deposit, and
preparation of the bank reconciliation.
In the Justice's office this is not practical due to the limitation on the
number of personnel. To provide added internal control the County is in
the process of installing an electronic docket system in all the Justice's
offices. This essentially is a one write system which would create a
•
receipt at the time monies exchange hand and post the receipt to the proper
docket controlled by the Justice. It will also prepare a daily and monthly
recap of activity to be used for attachment to the monthly reports. To
strengthen this effort the Auditor's office is recommending that in each of
the Justice's office a one person should be responsible for preparing the
receipts and making the deposits, and a second person should be
responsible for the bank reconciliations. In some cases this will mean that
the elected official will be required to take on one of the suggested
functions.
The Jail Commissary poses a little different problem. The current system
being followed does provide some degree of accountability, but lacks
levels of responsibility. As each shift changes the cash on hand is counted
and transferred to the next shift supervisor. The cash on hand represents
funds impounded from inmates coming into the system and funds received
from the outside to be credited to the benefit of an inmate. These funds
are "periodically" deposited. As inmates leave the system refunds are
made from the cash on hand. The deposit, when made, is not reconciled
to the receipts issued for the period. And, transfers are made from the
Minimum Security Facility to the Courthouse booking station. These
transfers are usually in cash and the only record of the transaction is that
which is recorded on the "daily booking register". When shortages do
i
•
occur, it is not possible from the present record keeping process to
determine when or why the shortage happened.
Vo PAGE.J.3 - 2
ej
'
N
R
o;
The Jail Commissary program does have separate personnel receipting
funds, depositing funds and preparing the bank reconciliation. However,
there is not a level of responsibility established to guarantee that all
activity is being properly accounted for.
This office has recommended that daily cash receipts be deposited in tact.
It has been recommended that each facility make a separate deposit and
that funds not be commingled. It has been recommended that the daily
deposit be reconciled to the receipts issued for the period, and this function
should be done by someone other than an officer that works the booking
station. It has been recommended that funds receipted form inprocessing
of inmates should be accounted for separately from those funds that are
received from the "free world" on behalf of a inmate. And, it has been
recommended that all payments to inmates on release should be made in
the form of a check and not in cash.
Purchasing and Encumbrances
he County currently does not use a purchase order system for a majority
f its expenditures. Instead, requisitions are used to obtain approval after
hecks have been prepared for payment. Per the Local Government Code,
equisitions must be approved before the purchase is made. The budget is
of reviewed when requisitions are submitted for approval. Instead,
Budgets are amended when expenditures exceed appropriations. In most
ystems, outstanding purchase orders represent encumbrances at year end.
'he County system does not have an efficient procedure to accurately
letermine encumbrances.
f'he current electronic financial system that the County uses does not
Blow for the use of purchase orders and "real time" encumbrances. The
equisition is used to expedite the purchasing needs of the departments.
:ssentially, each department acts as its own purchasing coordinator and
►nce the acquisition is made a requisition is processed requesting the
:ommissioners Court's approval for payment. The purchasing reference
nade by the external auditors is to Local Government Code § 113.901.
['his provision along with other statutes states that the when there is not a
>urchase order system, then the requisition must be approved prior to the
?urchase. The statutes indicate that only the Commissioners Court can
:ncumber funds, and that no other official has that authority without the
;xpress permission of the Commissioners Court.
Currently the Auditor's office reviews all requisitions as they are
presented for entrance to the claims register. Documentation and budget
authority is examined. The County uses a classified budget for
establishing levels of expenditure control. Therefore, if a line item is over
VOL. =_4 PAGE ~1-4
•
•
v
N
.k
f
expended, but the classification has funds available, the requisition is
approved for processing. The expenditure and budget analysis used for
comparison is usually a week old and therefore data is not as current as
would be liked. At year end the accounting records are held open for
about 60 days to allow for all expenditures (encumbrances) for the
previous year to be recorded in the proper budget period. It is at this point
when over expenditure occurs, and it is not possible to amend the budget.
Budget amendments should be approved by the Court before the
expenditure is incurred, and not after the fact.
Once the problem was recognized this office proposed to the
Commissioners Court that a new financial software package be purchased
which would allow the County to have a purchase order system and which
would allow the County to comply with State statutes. The financial
software has been purchased and the first phase of implementation will
take place May 1. The accounts payable system will initially follow the
same system that we currently have. This will be followed by the
establishment of an encumbrance system, and finally the creation of a
purchase order system. The purchase order system will be developed in
conjunction with the establishment of a uniform purchasing policy.
Comment. Chapter 262 of the Local Government Code forbids sequential purchasing
of items by any department from the same supplier to circumvent bidding
procedures. The County currently has no system in place to monitor this
type of activity
Response: The statutes in reference maintain that the County may not spend more
than $15,000 with a vendor during a twelve (12) month consecutive period
without the Court establishing an exemption from bidding or, the Court
requesting a bid to be prepared. The current software system will not
maintain this type of information, and therefore, if it is suspicioned that
the law is being broken, then the vendor file must be pulled for the current
and the previous fiscal period and tapes run to make an evaluation. This is
done periodically and "after the fact" exemptions are prepared for the
Court's approval. The external audit revealed that several vendors were
commonly used by different departments and in fact exceeded the $15,000
limitation annually.
•
The new accounting package will relieve some of this in efficiency in that
evaluations and projections can be developed before the fact instead of
after the fact. However, without a purchase order system in place, there is
no way that the Commissioners Court can guarantee that the $15,000
limitation is being monitored effectively.
V01_PAQE APi~. a
9
M m
Comment: Several cash accounts, including County Clerk, District Clerk, County
Attorney and Justice of the Peace Offices, are not regularly reconciled and
cash shortages are not reported to the Auditor's office in accordance with
County policy. There are also several cash accounts that are not recorded
on the General Ledger. All of these items are important checks and
balances that need to be kept in place to control the risk of
misappropriation.
Response: Currently none of the fee accounts belonging to the elected officials are
made a part of the general ledger and the "real time" accounting system.
These accounts are to be maintained at the fee office level and are the
responsibility of the elected official. For the past year the Auditor's office
has been conducting an extensive audit of each fee office. The result of
the audit has been reported to the official with suggested
recommendations. When the program is completed the Auditor's office
intends to issue a standardized policy and procedure to be followed by all
offices with regards to cash, receipts, reconciliations, deposits, reports and
related matters. These procedures will standardized the process to be
followed by all offices. However, it will be probably at least a couple of
years before the County is ready to put the fee accounts on the general
ledger. An accounting program is being worked on to address this issue.
There are however, several accounts under the control of elected officials
which are not reconciled on a monthly basis; i.e. bail bond accounts and
trust funds. These accounts to date have not been incorporated on the
general ledger due to the fact that accurate and consistent information with
regards to the account has not been made available. It is recommended `
that the accounts be placed on the general ledger as "trust and agency"
accounts and that the elected officials responsible for their mainte-uance be
required to report the activity in the accounts to the auditors office
monthly. Historically, the Auditor's office has not been auditing these
accounts - the office has been doing the accounting and creating the
reports for the elected officials.
Comment: In a prior period, a theft of more than $10,000 was discovered in the office
of a Justice of the Peace. The controls needed to reduce the risk of a
similar occurrence have not been implemented and current internal audits
do not include tests in this area.
VOL N PAGE .-ME-P-o s .
r,
tr "
z -
t
•
•
Response: The reference in the comment is to Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 -
Antone Dobrovony, and the suggestions made in 1992-93 have not been
entirely implemented. During the last internal audit some of the same
areas of risk were still found to not be covered. However, with the use of
the electronic docketing system now being employed within the office the
risk of theft has been reduced to a level that is controllable.
The electronic docketing and receipt system assures the user that when a
receipt is issued it will be posted to a docket file. If no docket file is
designated with the receipt the funds are recorded in a deferred bond file.
The JP is to review this file monthly and verify its accuracy. The
automatic posting to a docket eliminates one of the problems inherent to
the JP system and which allow a previous clerk to duplicate receipts and
lap payments. The audit program did evaluate if the receipts were being
posted to the docket, and it was noted that not all were being posted. It is
not feasible to develop an audit program to evaluate whether or not the
events which allowed the theft are being duplicated. The only deterrent is
through elected officials monitoring of the daily activity and the
knowledge that the Auditor's office is constantly reviewing the activity.
Prior to the events in JP 5 the Auditor's office had only taken a position to
review the monthly activity to see that it balanced. Today a more pro-
active role is being played in order that a early warning system can be
installed.
Timely Transfer of Funds For Deposit
Comment: Local Government Code § 113.022 and County policy requires transfer of
funds for deposit at least every seven days. Internal audits discovered two
Justices of the Peace not following the procedure.
Response: Currently there are several fee offices that do not follow the statutes. It
has been recommended by the Auditor's office that all comply. As
previously noted, it is anticipated that once the internal audit sequence is
completed a standard set of policies and procedures will be issued- and all
fee offices will be held responsible for compliance.
Expenditure Approval Procedures
Comment: 'Me Jail Commissary Fund does not use requisitions or any other formal
approval process for expenditures. Without this control, unauthorized
purchases may take place and bidding requirements may not be followed.
M. -S PAGE 6
1 M "
ti
Response: The internal audit procedures currently being followed disclosed the same
findings and, recommendations were made to the Sheriff. It was
recommended that the Commissary Fund be placed on the general ledger
and that all purchasing and requisitions be processed as is done with other
funds. If this is not acceptable it was then recommended that the Sheriff
adopt some form of formal requisition system as required by the statutes.
The current system being used does circumvent the bidding policy
established by the statutes and has allowed for unauthorized purchases to
take place. The problem is that the commissary fund comes under the sole
control of the Sheriff, and it is the responsibility of the Sheriff to follow
prescribed guidelines. If the Sheriff %vishes to maintain an independent
system of accounting and record keeping separate from the County, he
may do so. Currently, some changes are taking place.
Cash Receipts Documentation and Reconciliation
Comment: The Jail Commissary Fund issues a single copy of a cash receipt when
payments are received from inmates and that copy is filed in the inmates
file. Daily deposits are not reconciled to the cash receipts issued for the
day. With these policies, there is very little control over cash.
j Response: This issue has been covered in a previous response. It has been
f recommended that daily deposits be reconciled and made daily - in tact. It
has been recommended that the pre-nurnbered cash receipt system be
followed and a copy kept with the daily deposit. It has been recommended
that impounded funds and "free world" funds be accounted for and
deposited separately.
Cash Receipts Not Always Used
~
Cash Receipts Not Reconciled To Pa History
Comment: The District Clerk's office does not issue a cash receipt for all revenue
received. This gives no paperwork trail to resolve questions and increases
the risk of misappropriation. -
When the District Clerk's office receives payments in the Child Support
account, they are not initially posted in a cash receipts log and total
receipts are not reconciled to posting in the individual's pay history. This
could cause disputes regarding the amount of child support payments
made and there may not be adequate information to settle a dispute.
Response: This situation was noted during the internal audit of the District Clerk's
office with regards to child support payments. Child Support payments
are made in the form of cash, cashier's checks and personal checks. Some
of the checks are made out to the recipient and not the District Clerk and
VO S --PAGE,
r
u
1
l
[7
4
F
t
i
therefore are passed through (i.e. remailed). Some of the checks are made
out to the District Clerk on behalf of the recipient. Cash monies are
receipted, but checks were found to not always be formally receipted. It
has been recommended that all funds be receipted in some form, and if
formal receipts are not issued for pass through funds, then they should be
recorded in a daily log. It has been recommended that all funds deposited
are to be receipted. The current District Clerk is in the process of
rectifying the short comings.
Interest on Child Support In Arrears
Comment: Vernon's Texas Code Annotated gives responsibility to charge 12%
interest on all child support payments more than 30 days late. The District
clerk's office does not currently review pay histories to determine
accounts that are in arrears and therefore does not charge interest on those
balances. The County could be considered liable for uncollected interest if
a parent files a claim for it.
Response: The Family code (VTCA) §14.34 speaks to the responsibility of the
District Clerk's office to assess interest on all child support payments
received 31 days after their ordered due date (see attached). The District
Clerk's office in the past has not been monitoring the child support
accounts for delinquency and therefore, has not been assessing interest on
delinquent payments.
It has been recommended that the District Clerk (with the guidance of the
District Judges) review The Family Code § 14.34 and § 14.41, as well as
the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Act. It appears that it is the District
Clerk's responsibility as the clerk-of-the-court to maintain a current record
of arrearage, assess interest, and forward the collection of the interest to
the beneficiary as named by the court. But, this would then mean that
when the obligor remits directly to the obligee, that the Clerk would need
to be informed so that arrearage records could be updated.
Accounts Receivable Subsidiary Ledgers
Comment: The County does not utilize subsidiary ledgers for accounts receivable. If
subsidiary ledgers were used, time would be saved in trying to reconcile
account balances.
Response: In evaluating the current accounting procedures being used within the
County it has been determined that the only receivable that could be
accounted for using a receivable system would be with regards to grant
P,
VO r pAGES._D2
8
i
r
r
1
F
e
L
k
E
i
4
monitoring. For the most part the County is not structured legally to have
a "billing" system which would lend itself to accounts receivable and
subsidiary ledgers.
It has been recommended that with the advent of the new accounting
system in May 1995 that the County will establish a subsidiary accounting
system with regards to grant receipts and related monitoring.
Comment: We noted that the County has informal procedures to identify and monitor
family relationships between county officials and employees which might
violate the state nepotism statutes.
Response: The State has established formal policies which establish guidelines with
regards to nepotism. These guidelines identify family relationships at two
different levels and guidelines for vendor and contractor relationships.
It is recommended that the County's personnel office be responsible for
documenting relationships that may lead to nepotism and establishing a
comprehensive policy which develops acceptable family relationships
within County employment. Further, it is recommended that the County
Policy as adopted be communicated to all elected officials and department
heads, since the Commissioners Court has no authority (by statute) over
the hiring and firing of county employees, once a position is properly
budgeted.
Comment: We noted in our review of legal issues that there were legal files
maintained in various offices within the County and that some of the files
did not contain the current status of the claim.
Response: This issue was raised before the Commissioners Court and the
recommendation made at that time was to place a civil attorney within the
County Attorney's office, who would be responsive to the Court's needs
and who acted as a clearing house for all civil activity and suits brought
against the County. The position would be required to make a monthly
report to the Court with regards to all suits and issues filed before the
Court.
VO _ PAG E ALP. 9
These responses have outlined some recommendations for some of the issues raised.
After review if there are questions or areas that need to be discussed further please feel
free to contact me.
Thank You.
I
3
! Reynolds
Brazos County Auditor
Copy: Hon. Alvin Jones, County Judge
Hon. Carolyn Ruffin, 361st District Judge
Hon. J. D. Langley, 85th District Judge
Hon. John Delaney, 272nd District Judge
Attachments: 12 documents
•
.5
(c
1
l
7
M9ft _
VOL PAGE A//
r
4
t
10
t _
f
t
t
i
i
r
i•
r
I
Members of the Audit Committee
Brazos County
Bryan, Texas
TELEAI014
(409) 77626W
T LEUrtel
(409) 774-7759
In planning and performing our audit of the general purpose
financial statements of Brazos County, Texas ("County") for the
year ended September 30, 1994, we considered its internal control
structure in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
not to provide assurance on the internal control structure.
However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control
structure and its operation that we consider to be reportable
conditions under standards established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve
matters coming to our attention relating to significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control
structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the
County's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data consistent with the assertions of management in the general
purpose financial statements.
SEGREGATION OF DUTIES
In order to have effective internal controls it is essential to
have proper segregation of duties. During the course of our audit
we noted the following areas where certain incompatible duties were
being performed by the same person:
Treasurer's office
Cash Handling i Cash Recording - The same person receives incoming
checks and cash for deposit, and also records the actual cash
receipts in the system.
,1'~
Cash Recording i Bank Reconciliation - The same employee records
cash receipts and performs the bank reconciliations.
VOL ~_.PAaE-~--/~?
Jams D. Inv m, III
Thomas A. Wallis
Agnes L Bennett
Judrth W. Childs
James D. Ingram. IV
Rwhard L Webb
Wendi M Stratta
Pu-Yu (Pew) Wang
Diane I- Kruse
Steven J. Little
INGRAM, WALLIS & COMPANY
A MOFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CemM Public Accounow
2100 Villa Maria. Suite 100
BRY 4N. TEXAS 77801
b.
•
Justice of the Peace offices & Jail Commissary
Cash Handling & Cash Reconciliation - Several employees have access
to the cash drawer, therefore, no responsibility for cash shortages
can be determined. The cash reconciliation is also performed by
one of the employees who has access to the cash drawer. Ideally,
each employee should have a separate cash drawer or another method
of cash accountability.
We recommend that separate employees be given responsibility for
each of the above mentioned incompatible cash functions.
PURCHASING AND ENCUMBRANCES
The County currently does not use a purchase order system for a
majority of its expenditures. Instead, requisitions are used to
obtain approval after checks have been prepared for payment. Per
Local Government Code, requisitions must be approved before the
purchase is made. The budget is not reviewed when requisitions are
submitted for approval. Instead, budgets are amended when
expenditures exceed appropriations. In most systems, outstanding
purchase orders represent encumbrances at year end. The County
system does not have an efficient procedure to accurately determine
encumbrances.
•
We suggest that the County implement a purchase order system. This
would facilitate approval of purchases before the transaction takes
place and would also make details of encumbrances more easily
obtained. Prior to implementation, the procedures currently used
should be changed so that approval of requisitions takes place
before the purchase is made in order to comply with the Code.
Also, year-to-date expenditures in comparison to budget should be
considered before the approval takes place.
SEQUENTIAL PURCHASING
Chapter 262 of the Local Government Code forbids sequential
purchasing of items by any department from the same supplier to
circumvent bidding procedures. The County currently has no system
in place to monitor this type of activity.
We recommend software changes that would allow a query listing
purchases by department and vendor for any specific time period,
including those that span more than one fiscal year.
CASH RECONCILIATIONS & OFF-GENERAL LEDGER CASH ACCOUNTS
•
Several cash accounts, including County Clerk, District Clerk,
County Attorney and Justice of the Peace Offices, are not regularly
reconciled and cash shortages are not reported to the Auditor's
office in accordance with County policy. There are also several
cash accounts that are not recorded on the General Ledger. All of
these items are important checks and balances that need to be kept
in place to control the risk of misappropriation.
VOIL -:1.L- PAGE
k- t.
i
i
x,
We suggest that all cash accounts be on the General Ledger and that
all funds under the control of the County be reconciled regularly
and that shortages be reported to the County Auditor.
LACK OF CONTROLS TO DETER THEFT OF CASH
In a prior period, a theft of more than $10,000 was discovered in
the office of a Justice of the Peace. The controls needed to
reduce the risk of a similar occurrence have not been implemented
and current internal audits do not include tests in this area.
We recommend that the receipts listed in the docket books be
compared to the receipt ledger on a regular basis by an employee
independent of the cash receipts function. This procedure should
also be tested during internal audits.
Local Government Code section 113.022 and County policy requires
transfer of funds for deposit at least every seven days. Internal
audits discovered twq Justice of the Peace offices not following
this procedure.
We suggest that all cash under the control of the County be
deposited in a timely manner.
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL PROCEDURES
The Jail Commissary Fund does not use requisitions or any other
formal approval process for expenditures. Without this control,
unauthorized purchases may take place and bidding requirements may
not be followed.
We recommend that requisitions should be used and approved by a
supervisor who does not sign checks or record transactions. Also,
bidding policies should be considered before expenditures are
approved.
CASH RECEIPTS DOCUMENTATION AND RECONCILIATION
The Jail Commissary Fund issues a single copy of a cash receipt
when payments are received from inmates and that copy is filed in
the inmates file. Daily deposits are not reconciled to the cash
receipts issued for the day. With these policies, there is very
little control over cash.
We suggest that a prenumbered cash receipts system be used that
utilizes duplicate copies. One copy should be filed in the inmates
file and the other copy should be filed with all receipts from that
day and reconciled to the bank deposit.
CASH RECEIPTS NOT ALWAYS USED
The District Clerk's Office does not issue a cash receipt for all
VOL PAOF ~
i~ •
C
i
•
C7
f
revenue. This gives no paperwork trail to resolve questions and
increases the risk of misappropriation.
All funds should issue cash receipts or use a cash receipts log for
all revenue.
CASH RECEIPTS NOT RECONCILED TO PAY HISTORY
g
h
k
t
i
When the District Clerk's Office receives payments in the Child
Support account, they are not posted in a cash receipts lbg and
total receipts are not reconciled to posting in the individual's
pay history. This could cause disputes regarding the amount of
child support payments made and there may not be adequate
information to settle the dispute.
We recommend that cash receipts be issued or that a log book be
used to record all payments received. These receipts should be
regularly reconciled to the pay histories.
INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT IN ARREARS
Vernon's Texas Code Annotated gives responsibility to charge 12%
interest on all child support payments more than 30 days late. The
District Clerk's office does not currently review pay histories to
determine accounts that are in arrears and therefore does not
charge interest on those balances. The County could be considered
liable for uncollected interest if a parent files a claim for it.
We believe a regular reconciliation of pay histories should be
performed and applicable interest should be accrued monthly.
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SUBSIDIARY LEDGERS
The County does not utilize subsidiary ledgers for Accounts
Receivable. If subsidiary ledgers were used, time would be saved
in trying to reconcile account balances.
We suggest that subsidiary ledgers be used for accounts receivable
with major activity. If not practical, a periodic reconciliation
should be performed and adjustments should be made at that time.
We noted that the County has informal procedures to identify and
monitor family relationships between County officials and employees
which might violate the State nepotism statutes.
We recommend the County develop, adopt and implement comprehensive
policies with procedures designed to aid the County in identifying
family relationships between Officials and employees. Further, we
suggest that such policies and procedures include provisions that
family relationships be monitored by a responsible Official to
insure State nepotism laws are not violated.
VOL. PAGE,-AX. /S-
l+ y
I
CENTRALIZED CONTROL OVER LEGAL ISSUES
We noted in our review of legal issues that there were legal files
maintained in various offices within the County and that some of
the files did not contain the current status of the claim.
We suggest that an official be designated to take responsibility
for centralized control over these claims. Although files may
continue to be located at various offices within the County, this
official should have a file with a master list of all claims that
contains such information as: parties involved, date of claim,
legal counsel, County's intent to defend, insurance deductible,
most recent correspondence date, last time case was reviewed with
legal counsel, etc. This master list should be monitored and
discussed with responsible officials regularly.
A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design
or operation of one or more of the internal control structure
elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in
relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and
not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal
course of performing their assigned functions.
Our consideration of the internal control structure would not
necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure '
that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not
necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also
considered to be material weaknesses as defined above. However,
none of the reportable conditions described above is believed to be
a material weakness.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the i
Audit Committee and the County's management and should not be used
for any other purpose.
We would like to express our appreciation to you and your staff for
the cooperation extended to us during our audit.
We shall be pleased to discuss the matters contained in this letter
at your convenience.
11-47
Bryan, Texas
December 19, 1994
- I
i
G
1 '
Y
~ VOL PAQF.
r
t
F
•
r
f
6
r
F
r
f
6
r James D Ingrain. III
Thomas A Wallis
Agnes L Bennett
Judith W. Childs
James D. Ingram. IV
Rschaid L Webb
Wendi M. Strata
Pu•Yu (Peggy) Wang
Diane E. Ktsse
Steven J. Link
December 19, 1994
To the Audit Committee of Brazos County, Texas
,i
S
1
TELEr+M)tNE
(409) 7762600
TEaCCII'm
(409) 774-7759
We have audited the general-purpose financial statements of Brazos
County, Texas ("the County"), for the year ended September 30, 1994
and have issued our report thereon dated December 19, 1994.
Our professional standards require that we communicate with you
concerning certain matters that may be of interest to you in
fulfilling your obligation to oversee the financial reporting
responsibility. We have prepared the following comments to assist
you in fulfilling that obligation.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS
We conducted our audit of the 1994 financial statements of the
County in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement. When
performing an audit in accordance with those standards, we-are only
required to obtain an understanding of the County's internal
control structure sufficient to enable us to properly plan our
audit. Therefore, we cannot provide any assurances about the
design or operation of the internal control structures.
Based, in part, on our understanding of the control environment, we
designed our audit to provide reasonable assurance of detecting
errors and irregularities. However, because of the characteristics
of irregularities, particularly those involving forgery and
collusion, a properly designed and executed audit may not detect
such items.
r~
VON PAGE 7
o,
INGRAM, WALLIS & COMPANY
A MMFSSiONAL CORPORATION
Certified Public Accountants
21011 Villa Mana, Suite 100
BRYAN, TEXAS 77802
r a
P
t
t
F~
1
t
December 19, 1994
Page T
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The County's significant accounting policies are disclosed in the
notes to the general-purpose financial statements.
During the year ended September 30, 1994, there were no significant
changes in previously adopted accounting policies or their
application.
MANAGEMENT JUDGMENTS AND ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial
statements prepared by management and are based upon management's
current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge
and experience about past and current events and assumptions about
future events. Significant accounting estimates reflected in the
County's 1994 general-purpose financial statements are normal and
were determined on a basis consistent with that used in the prior
year except as noted-below.
SIGNIFICANT AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS
We proposed no audit adjustment that, either individually or in the
aggregate, would have a significant effect on the County's
financial reporting process, in our judgement. All proposed audit
adjustments, whether recorded in the accounting records or not,
were reviewed with management.
DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT
We had no disagreements with management regarding the application
of accounting principles, the basis for management's judgments
about accounting estimates, the scope of our audit, disclosures to
be included in the financial statements or the wording of our
report on the 1994 general-purpose financial statements.
CONSULTATION WITH MANAGEMENT
Management informed us that there were no consultations with other
independent public accountants regarding accounting or auditing
matters during 1994.
MAJOR ISSUES DISCUSSED WITH MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO RETENTION
We discussed no major accounting or auditing issues with management
in connection with our retention as the County's auditors in 1994.
i •
1
VO PAO Er.,
3
December 19, 1994
Page 3
DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT
We experienced no difficulties in dealing with management relating
to the performance of our audit. We received the full cooperation
of management and staff. We believe that we have direct and
unrestricted access to the County0s management.
This report is intended solely for the information of the Audit
Committee and should not be used for any other purpose.
We will be pleased to discuss this report with you further at your
convenience.
7,,-
El
•
V01
~,~_pA0E~9
l
h
1.
1
t
t
r
I
CHAPTER 112. COUNTY FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
112.001.
Accounting System in County With County Auditor and Population of Less
Than 190,000.
112.002.
Accounting System in County With County Auditor and Population of
190,000 or More.
112.003.
Comptroller's Authority to Prescribe Forms and Determine Manner of Stat.
ing Accounts.
112.004.
Accounts Kept for Officers by County Clerk.
112.005.
Accounts Kept for Officers by County Auditor.
112.006.
General Oversight Authority of County Auditor.
112.007.
County Auditor's Records of County Financial Transactions.
112.008.
Maintenance of Finance Records by Commissioners Court.
112.009.
County Auditor Performing Duties Instead of County Clerk.
'
112.010.
County Fiscal Year.
[Sections 112.011 to 112.030 reserved for expansion]
•i.
't
SUBCHAPTER B. TAX ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS
a;
!
112.031.
Account for Tax Assessor-Collector. ,
r
i
112.032.
Receipt for Tax Rolls; Credits.
112.033.
Indigent and Delinquent Tax Lists.
112.034.
Delivery of Tax Rolls to Successor.
112.035.
Occupation Tax Records.
[Sections 112.036 to 112.050 reserved for expansion]
SUBCHAPTER C. OTHER SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS
112.051.
Sheriff Account.
112.052.
Justice of the Peace Account.
112.053.
Estray Account.
112.054.
County Treasurer Account. _
{
WFSTLAW Electronic Research
See WESTI AW Electronic Research Guide following the Preface.
a
~
library References
Counties ea84, 1541/2.
CJS. Counties 132. 229.
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 112.001: Accounting System In County With County Auditor and Popu-
lation of Less Than 190,000
In a county with a population of less than 190,000, the county auditor may
adopt and enforce regulations, not inconsistent with law or with a rule
VO CA,
• 4 ,
i
•
~J
ACCOUNTING § 112.001
Ch. 112 Note 2
adopted under Section 112.003, that the auditor considers necessary for the
speedy and proper collecting, checking, and accounting of the revenues and
other funds and fees that belong to the county.
Acts 1987. 70th Leg.. ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Revisor's Note
(1) The revised law omits as unnecessary the source law provision that a
regulation adopted under this section may not be inconsistent with the
constitution of this state. This prohibition is covered by the other prohibition,
which is kept by the revised law, that prevents adoption of regulations
inconsistent with "law." The constitution is "law."
(2) The revised law limits the application of this section to a county with a
population of under 190,000. The source law. V.A.C.S. Article 1656, was
enacted in 1905 and originally applied to all counties in this state. In 1933 the
legislature enacted V.A.C.S. Article 1656a to define the accounting responsibili-
ties of a county auditor in a county with a population of 190,000 or more.
Article 1656a covers all that is in Article 1656 and more. As a result. Article
1656 affects only a county with a population of less than 190,000, and the
revised law is drafted accordingly.
(3) To the extent that a regulation adopted by a county auditor under this
section is inconsistent with a rule adopted by the comptroller under Section
112.003, the comptroller's rule prevails because the source law for Section
112.003 was enacted after the source law for this section. The revised law
clarifies this issue.
Historical Note
Prior Law- Rev.Civ.St.1911. arts. 1476, 1477.
Acts 1905, 29th Leg., p. 382, § 8. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1656.
Cross References
Deposit of funds to accord with procedures prescribed hereunder, see § 113.021.
Law Review Commentaries
Annual survey of Texas law: Challenges to and Michael H. Collins, 35 Southwestern (Tex.)
local government action. Charles L. Babcock L.J. 447 (1981).
Notes of Decisions
Forms 1 2. School districts
School districts 2 A county auditor has no supervision of the
funds of a common school district of the coun-
ty. Houston Nat. Exchange Bank v. School
Dist. No. 25. Harris County (Civ.App.1916) 185
1. Forms S.W.589.
County auditor has authority to prescribe County auditor is required to examine and
and prepare forms to be used by sheriff for his verify all books, accounts, reports, vouchers.
and other in reporting the correct mileage trav- records of county superintendent
which relate to county and district school
eled in the discharge of official business, pro- funds, and details for such examination and
vided such forms be not inconsistent with the manner in which it is worked out is within
Constitution and laws of the state. OpAtty. discretion of auditor, but county auditor is not
Gen. >y~jts o. 0461. t PAO F,.fA required to approve school vouchers drawn
a~
It
E
t
THE FOLLOWING
DOCUMENT
IS THE BEST IMAGE
POSSIBLE
DUETO
THE POOR QUALITY
OF THE ORIGINAL
r
.-t
ce
ze first
of the
fed by:
ticable
ditures -
budget-_
tion is •
w-each'
F.II~1bT~3? - $~~~1.~.
ZStle °4 t Nate- 4
.r 11'.•t•~ n!t[f.`i. ..l"i' it. :fHisto j(atend Statutory,,I~T_o s.p'Z i:r,-i•~trh:•- J.. .••K. M
Prior Laws: Acta'1981;'67ib'I:.'p.'58, eh. 193.12.
Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1218, ch. U9,, f 1. Acts 1985, 69th Leg, ch. 211, 4 &
Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2315, ch. 841, ~ 4(a). Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. sit 29L
~'.11L06;; Approved Budget Filed With Officers
On final -approval • of, the -budget by the commissioners court, the court shall file a Dopy of
the budget with the county auditor and the county clerk.
Amended bY. 1989, 71st-Uj.', 6: 584, § 101; of .'Sept 1 19M.- '
Historical- and Statutory Notes
1989 Legislation
7be 1989 amendment inserted ."and" following
'county auditor" and deleted find the state'sudi- '
tor" following "the county clerk".
11L074. -Limitation on Budget of County Auditor
An increase from one fiscal 'year to -the next in the amount budgeted for expenses of the
county auditor's:'office tr'the salary of an assistant auditor shall not exceed five (5) percent
without ap*val'of the'commissioners court.
Added -by Acts 1991,, 72nd' Leg., clL 600, § 5, efE June 15, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg,. ch. M. 3, eb
Aug. 26, 1991.
- Historical and Statutory Notes
• 1991 Legislation .
,'For applicability- pa!vvision `of Acts 1991; 72nd
Leg., ch.• 739, Am notes under § 111.013. '
(Sections 111.075 to 111.090 reserved; f
.1or. ~cpansioa]
1
x3);-~
ut, the
oration
'before
69, and
budget
'udget
budget
N law.
>e 10th
to give
CHAPTER 112. COUNTY FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
112001, . Accounting System, in County With County Auditor and Population
of Less Than 190,000
Notes of Decisions
Regulations 4
Requited reports. 3
3 Required reports
A county auditor in a county with a population of
less than 190,000 may not require the county tax
assessor-collector to submit notarized or sworn
weekly revenue reports to the auditor pursuant to
Local Government Code sections 112001 and 114.-
003; but the county auditor may require county
officers who receive money belonging to the county
to submit unworn statements to the.auditor under
section 112.005 of the Local Government Code in a
form and manner prescribed by the auditor. Op.
4. Regulations
County auditor in County under 190,000 may
require use'of county's federal employer identillea-
tion number on all depositary bank accounts that
contain funds belonging to the county. OpAtty.
Gen. 1990, No. JM42M
County auditor in county with population of less
than 190,000 may-adopt and enforce r2tulations
pursuant to § 112001 of Local Government Code
that incidentally required use of specific computer
programming by county officers, provided such
rules are not inconsistent with law or regulation
adopted by Comptroller of Public Accountants pur-
suant to § 112003 of Local Government Code and
do not unreasonably infi•inge upon duties of county
officers; county auditor may not dictate what
equipment county officers shall use in conduct of
affairs of their offices. OoAttv.Gen. 1990, No.
I
i'
0 '
r
c
•
Counties x-155.
U.S. Counties § 233.
•
MONEY MANAGEMENT
Ch. 113
Library References
§ 113.021
Note 1
§ 113.021. Requirement That Money be Deposited With County Treasur-
er and Put Into Special Fund; Interest
(a) The fees, commissions, funds, and other money belonging to a county
shall be deposited with the county treasurer by the officer who collects the
money. The officer must deposit the money in accordance with any applica-
ble procedures prescribed by or under Section 112.001 or 112.002. However,
the county tax assessor-collector must deposit the money in accordance with
the procedures prescribed by or under the Tax Code and other laws.
(b) The county treasurer shall deposit the money in the county depository
in a special fund to the credit of the officer who collected the money. If the
money is fees, commissions, or other compensation collected by an officer
who is paid on a salary basis, the appropriate special fund is the applicable
salary fund created under Chapter 154.
(c) The interest accruing on the money in the special fund is for the benefit
of the county in accordance with other law.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg.. ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987-.
Revisor's Note
Parts of V.A.C.S. Articles 1656a and 1709a relating to the securing of funds
by the bond of a depository are omitted from revision because the substance is
adequately covered by provisions in Chapter 116, Depositories for County
Public Funds.
Historical Note
Prior Law: Acts 1935. 44th Leg., 2nd CS.. p. 1762, ch.
Acts 1897, 25th Leg., C.S., p. 11. § 19. 465, § 10.
Rev.Civ.St.1911. art. 3896. Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1654, ch. 467, 2 to
6.
Acts 1923, 38th Leg., p. 223. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 145, § 1. -
Acts 1933, 43rd Leg., p. 217, ch. 98. Vernon's Ann.CivSt. arts. 1656a; 1709a.
Acts 1935, 44th Leg., p. 330, ch. 122, § 1. 2, 3; art. 3898.
Cross References
Commission for receiving and paying out money, see § 153.001.
Report of fees and other money received, see § 114.041.
• Auditors Instructions 2
Interest 4
Interpleader deposits S
Mandamus 3
Notes of Decisions
Validity of prior law i
1. Validity of prior law
Supreme Court's determination that provi-
sions of Vernon's Ann.CivSt. arts.1656a and
2558a, § 4a (repealed; see, now, this section
and 117.051, 117.053 and 117.054), which
565
E
VOL -PAGE
Q,
. N N
li
I
i
t
§ 113.021
Note 1
permitted a county to keep all interest earned
on funds deposited with court, were unconsti-
tutional was to be applied retrospectively.
Harris County v. Wilkinson (Civ.App.1974) 507
S.W.2d 848.
Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1656a (repealed;
now, this section) was not declared unconstitu-
tional by Sellers v. Harris County (Sup.1972)
483 S.W.2d 242, but the portion thereof which
read "and draw interest for the benefit of the
county" had to be read in light of the Sellers
holding. Op.Atty.Gen.1972. No. M-1198.
2. Auditor's Instructions
Monies collected by the chief probation offi-
cer of Dallas county, for child support in di-
vorce cases under an order of the District
Court, were to be deposited with the County
Treasurer upon receipt of same if such was
required by the County Auditor pursuant to the
provisions of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1656a
(repealed; now, th)s section) as originally en-
acted. Op.Atty.Gen.1957. No. W%V-86.
The county auditor has discretion to pre-
scribe the manner and time of deposits to the
county treasurer by officers who collect county
funds. Op.Atty.Gcn.1973, No. H-183.
3. Mandamus
Under Rcv.Civ.St. 1911, art. 366 (see, now.
V.T.C.A. Government Code, § 41.009), autho-
rizing district or county attorneys to compel
any officer in his district intrusted with "Col-
lection or safe keeping of any public funds" to
perform his duties, the district attorney could,
by mandamus, compel district judge to permit
petitioner to control and prosecute an action
by county against the county attorney, to re-
cover fees collected in tax suits and commis-
sions on delinquent fees. McAskill v. Terrell
(1924) 113 T. 500, 259 S.W. 914.
Commissioners' Court of Midland County
cannot compel county clerk, district clerk, jus-
tice of the peace and other officials who collect
fees to remit all moneys for fees earned direct
to county treasurer since statutory method of
receiving and accounting for fees has not been
changed. Op.Atty.Gen.1943, No. 0-5073.
Trinity River Canal and Conservancy District
funds which court has ordered to be refunded
to taxpayers but which were in hands of tax
assessor-collector should be turned over by
him to county treasurer to be deposited in
county depository and thereafter assessor-col-
lector can draw checks, which must be cour-
tersigned by county auditor, on county treasur-
er to disburse such funds to persons, firms or
corporations to whom such funds legally be-
long and in the event that the assessor-collector
fails to deposit the funds in such manner, a
writ of mandamus may be issued against such
COUNTY FINANCES
Title 4
officer to compel performance of his duty.
Op.Atty.Gen.1944. No. 0-5860.
4, Interest
It was the intention of the legislature, b%
enactment of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St, arts. 1656a
and 2558a (repealed; sec, now, this section and
§ 117.051 ct seq.), relating to inter alia, deposit
of funds in county depository, to provide that
all funds, including those belonging to individ-
uals, which were received and held by auditor
or district clerk in their respective official ca-
pacities, should be placed in county depository
bank, and that when so deposited and invested
at interest the interest should belong to the
county as compensation to it for its expense in
handling such funds. Harris County v. Sellers
(Ci%.App. 1971) 468 S.W.2d 950, reversed on
other grou ds 483 S.W.2d 242.
Interest earned by the deposit of money re-
cei%ed pursuant to Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. art.
53.08 (renumbered; sec, now, art. 102.007). the
so-called "hot check" fund, had to be deposited
in the general revenue funds of the respective
counties pursuant to Vernon's Ann.Ci%.St. art.
1709 (repealed, sec, now, § 113.003 and -this
section). Op.Atty.Gen.. 1987, No. JM-632.
5. Interpleader deposits
Until the court, in exercise of its equitable
powers, entered an order to the contrary, the
clerk held funds deposited into registry- of
court in his official capacity, and Vernon's
Ann.Clv.St. arts. 2558a and 1656a (repealed;
see, now, § 117.051 et seq. and this section),
which related to, inter alia, deposit of funds in
county depository did not entrench on consti-
tutional equitable powers of the court so long
as the funds were held by the clerk in his
official capacity. Harris County v. Sellers (Civ.
App.1971) 468 S.W.2d 950, reversed on other
grounds 483 S.W.2d 242.
Various orders of the court, which assumed
to direct that investment be made of funds
paid into registry of court pursuant to inter-
pleader suit for benefit of claimants were be-
yond the court's power in light of Vernon's
Ann.Civ.St. arts. 2558a and 1656a (repealed;
see, now. § 117.051 et seq. and this section),
which related to, inter alia, deposit of funds in
county depository. since clerk and/or auditor
were at all times custodians of such funds in
their respective official capacities. Id.
Const. Art. 1, § 19, relating to taking, damag-
ing or destroying property for public use, was
limited to eminent domain proceedings, and
did not apply to Vernon's Ann.CivSt. arts.
2558a and 1656a (repealed. see, noa,
§ 177.051 et seq. and this section), which relat-
ed to, inter alia, deposit of funds in county
depository insofar as they provided that iinnter-
th t
VOL ---I
•
WANCES
Title 4
►f his duty.
•
r]
L
MONEY MANAGEMENT
Ch. 113
est earned on fund in registry of court pursu-
ant to interpleader action was for benefit of
county. Id.
Interest on amount deposited in court in
interpleader action was property of owner of
principal and not of county. Sellers v. Harris
County (Sup.1972) 483 S.W.2d 242.
Provision of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 2558a,
§ 4a (repealed; see, now, 117.051, 117.053
and 117.054), which entitled county to interest
on funds deposited in court in interpleader
action, without regard to relationship to value
of county services in safeguarding and invest-
ing sum, was violative of due process clauses
of Const. Art. 1, § 19 and U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 14. Sellers v. Harris County (Sup.
1972) 483 S.W.2d 242.
Even though the county was justified in not
keeping separate records as to each trust it
held because it relied upon Vernon's Ann.
CivSt. arts. 1656a and 2558a, § 4a (repealed;
§ 113.023
see, now, this section and 117.051, 117.053
and 117.054), which allowed it to retain all the
interest earned. the county could not retain the
interest earnings of the judgment creditors
money or relieve itself of burden of showing
the amount of interest created by the fund.
Harris County v. Wilkinson (Civ.App.1974) 507
S.W.2d 848, ref. n.r.e., appeal after remadd 540
S.W.2d 541, ref. n.r.e.
Pursuant to Vernon's Ann.Civ.St, arts. 1656a
and 2558a (repealed; see, now, this section and
117.051, 117.053 and 117.054) when trust
funds were paid into court during litigation
and invested at interest by the district clerk or
county auditor, the district judge was to direct
the ultimate payment of the interest to the
owner of the principal less a reasonable fee to
be determined by him to compensate the coun-
ty for its accounting and administrative ex-
penses incurred in handling the fund, and re-
lated matters. Op.Atty.Gen.1972, No. M-1198.
§ 113.022. Time for Making Deposits
A county officer who receives funds shall deposit the funds with the county
treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which
the funds are received. If this deadline is not met, the officer must deposit
the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the
day on which the funds are received. However, in a county with fewer than
50,000 inhabitants, the commissioners court may extend the period during
which funds must be deposited with the county treasurer, but the period may
not exceed 30 days after the date the funds are received.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Historical Note
Prior LAvi, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 145, § 1.
Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1654, ch. 467, 2 to Vernon's Ann.CivSt. art. 1709a. § 2.
6.
Notes of Decisions
Time for deposit 1 days of the county official's receipt of such
funds would be a violation of his statutory
duty. Op.Atty.Gen.1986, No. JM-397.
1. Time for deposit
A county official's failure to deposit county
funds with the county treasurer within seven
§ 113.023. Deposit Warrants
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), each deposit made in the county
treasury must be made on a deposit warrant issued in triplicate by the county
clerk. The deposit warrant authorizes the county treasurer to receive the
amount stated in the warrant. The warrant must state the purpose for which
the amount is received and the fund to which it is to r_p110_:4PAQ
d.567 VOA ~
M
h
islature, by
arts. 1656a
section and
alia, deposit
)rovide that
to individ-
I by auditor
official ca-
depository
nd invested
ong to the
expense in
y v. Sellers
eversed on
money re- i
.C.C.P. art.
)2.007), the ;
e deposited i
• respective
CivSt. art.
,3 and this
A-632.
equitable
ntrary, the
registry of
Vernon's ;
(repealed;
S section),
•f funds in i
on consti-
ut so long
xk in his
:hers (Civ.
on other
i
t assumed
of funds
to inter-
were be-
Vernon's
(repealed;
section),
` funds in
or auditor
funds in
1.
~ag-
uings. anwas
d
•St. arts,
V_ now,
Lich relat-
e county
hat inter-
I _ s.
c•
f
i
jr .
r
r
i
M : Am
t § 113.062 COUNTY FINANCES
Title 4
Historical Note
Prior Law- Rc%.CivSt.1911. art. 1443.
Rev.CivSt.1879, art. 972. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1632.
Rev.Civ.St.1895, art. 862.
Library References
Counties e-207(t).
CJS. Counties § 316.
' § 113.063. Claims Information List
(a) Each officer who collects a fine, penalty, forfeiture, judgment, tax, or
other indebtedness owed to the county in a claim against the county shall
keep a descriptive list of those claims. When the officer reports the collec-
tion, the officer shall file with the report a list that states:
(1) the party in whose favor the claim was issued;
(2) the class and register number of the claim;
(3) the name of the party paying in the claim;
(4) the amount received; and
j (5) the purpose for which the amount was received.
(b) The officer shall give the claims and the report to the county treasurer,.
who shall give the officer a receipt. The treasurer shall file the list with the
treasurer's report in the office of the county clerk.
j~ Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Historical Note
i
Prior Law. Rev.Civ.St.1911, arts. 1444, 1445.
Rev.Civ.St.1879, arts. 973. 974. Vernon's Ann.CivSt. art. 1633.
Rev.Civ.St.1895. ans. 863. 864.
4
_ t
§ 113.064. Approval of Claims by County Auditor 4
(a) In a county that has the office of county auditor, each claim, bill, and
account against the county must be filed in sufficient time for the auditor to
examine and approve it before the meeting of the commissioners court. A
claim, bill, or account may not be allowed or paid until it has been examined
and approved by the auditor.
(b) The auditor shall stamp each approved claim, bill, or account. If the
auditor considers it necessary, the auditor may require that a claim, bill, or
account be verified by an affidavit indicating its correctness.
(c) The auditor may administer oaths for the purposes of this section.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1980
580 J ~F~~
E
I 'i
MONEY MANAGEMENT
Ch. 113
•
§ 113.065
Note 5
§ 113.065. Requirement for Approval of Claim
The county auditor may not audit or approve a claim unless the claim was
incurred as provided by law.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Historical Note
Prior Law- Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 357, ch. 155, § 1.
Acts 1905, 29th Leg., p. 383, 12, 17. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1661, § 1.
Rev.Civ.St.1911, arts. 1484, 1485.
Notes of Decisions
1
•
Bid contracts 5
Commissioners court 8
Compensation of employees 7
Construction and application 1
Contracts 4, 5
Generally 4
Bid 5
Duty of auditor 2
Employee compensation 7
Execution of payroll 6
Liability of auditor 9
Payroll ereecution 6
Prerequisites for approval 3
1. Construction and application
Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1660 (repealed; see,
now, § 113.064) regarding presentation of
claims to county auditor before presentation to
commissioners court for approval and pay-
ment had to be considered and construed in
connection with art. 1661 (repealed; now, this
section) regarding requisites of approval by
auditor. Nacogdoches County v. Winder (Civ.
App.1940) 140 S.W.2d 972.
The provisions of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. arts.
1660 and 1661 (repealed; see, now, § 113.064
and this section) were mandatory and required
claims, bills or accounts against a county to be
examined and approved by county auditor for
payment and all warrants on the county trea-
sury, except those for jury service, be counter-
signed by county auditor, and moneys paid out
on claims, bills and accounts which had not
been approved by county auditor and moneys
paid out on warrants which had not been
countersigned by county auditor could be re-
covered. Op.Atty.Gen.1956. No. 5-149.
3. Prerequisites for approval
The county auditor of Waller county does
not have authority to require as a prerequisite
to his approval of a claim or item of expense
that all requisitions for such purchases or ex-
pcnse items shall be signed or approved by
him at the time the purchase is made or the
expense incurred. Op.Atty.Gen.1945, No.
0-6506.
The county auditor is not authorized to re-
quire as a prerequisite to his approval of a
claim or items of expense that a requisition be
signed and approved by him at the time the
purchase is made or the expense incurred. Op.
Atty.Gcn.1971, No. M-955.
4. Contracts, generally
When a tax attorney fails to file with tax
collector records, copies of communications,
notices, etc., required, by terms of contract for
collection of delinquent taxes, to be so filed,
and contract has by its terms expired, neither
county auditor nor commissioners court can
approve his claim for commissions. Op.Atty.
Gen.1943, No. 0-5339.
Commissioners court was not authorized to
direct payment of a claim under contract
which contravened Vernon's Ann.CivSt. art.
1580 (repealed; see, now, § 262.001), and
county auditor was prohibited from paying
such a claim. Op.Atty.Gen.1978, No. H-1237.
5. Bid contracts
The county auditor has no legal authority to
approve a claim submitted to him on a bid for
machinery accepted by the commissioners
court which was not the lowest bid and which
bid exceeds the maximum amount set out in
the notice to bidders. Off. Atty.Gen.1939, No.
0-770.
i Duty of auditor
County auditor has responsibility, before ap-
proving a claim against county, to determine
whether it strictly complies with law governing
county finances. Smith v. McCoy (CivApp.
1976) 533 S.W.2d 457. error dismissed.
With exception of emergency supplies, it is
mandatory upon the commissioners court to
purchase supplies of every kind for use of
county or its officers on competitive bids, and
if such supplies were not authorized on com-
petitive bids, county auditor is authorized to
;83 - VO S --AQ~
1.
t
f
i
r
r
MONEY MANAGEMENT § 113.901
Ch. 113
Notes of Decisions
t
Counties over 225,000 1
1. Counties over 225.000
After the office of County Auditor was cre.
ated and Vernon's Ann.CivSt. arts. 1665 and
1666a (repealed; see, now. 114.025, 111.031
et seq., 111.091, 111.093, and 114.023) were
passed, a new, entire and independent system
of rules and laws was passed relative to the
county budget and county financial reports in
counties with a population in excess of
225.000. thereby superceding and repealing
arts. 1634. 1635 and 1636 (repealed; see, now,
113.002. 113.044. 113.045. 114.026 and this
section). insofar as said articles pertained to
such counties. Op.Atty.Gcn.1960, No. %"V-
765.
[Sections 113.067 to 113.900 reserved for expansion]
SUBCHAPTER Z. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
§ 113.901. Requirements for Approval of Accounts and Requisitions
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), a county auditor may not audit or
approve an account for the purchase of supplies or materials for the use of
the county or of a county officer unless a requisition, signed by the officer
ordering the supplies or materials and approved by the county judge, is
attached to the account. The requisition requirement is in addition to any
other requirements of law.
(b) The requisition must be made, signed, and approved in triplicate. The
original must be delivered to the person from whom the purchase is to be
made before the purchase is made. The duplicate copy must be filed with the
county auditor. The triplicate copy must remain with the officer requesting
the purchase.
(c) The county judge of a county that has the office of county auditor may,
by a written order, waive the requirement of the county judge's approval of
requisitions. The order must be recorded in the minutes of the commission-
ers court. If the approval of the county judge is waived, all claims must be
approved by the commissioners court in open court.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Historical Note
Prior Law- Acts 1973. 63rd Leg.. p. 357, ch. 155. § 1.
Acts 1905. 29th Leg.. p. 383. 12, 17. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1661, 1. 2.
Rev.Civ.St.1911. arts. 1484, 1485.
Library References
Counties 4-158.
CJS. Counties § 234.
- - 5R5 VOL S PAGt~.~
. .w
~J
•
v~saa.
Title
nai child
sought
late and
and did
take to
Duncan
faded to
asion on
uld sup-
rity and
:x parte
acing of
7
d where
r relator
ng child
(App. 1
to judg-
pt. com-
support,
.stances
rent was
it court
it found
totalling
ontempt
;e, court
!mpt for
3ayment
arage to
se upon
er void.
W2d 18.
set out
idgment
entirety
ght; at-
tent was
derence;
nutes of
enforce-
. 5 Dist.
r invali-
(App.5
uld sup-
ited for ;
t order.
S.W2d
•
:rase of
commit-
- it was
leprirn ed
of law.
`-..d 72 -
PARENT AND CHILD
Title 2
15. Temporary detention
Trial court may cause contemnor to be detained
for short and reasonable time while judgment of
contempt and order of commitment are prepared
for court's signature. Ex parte Alford (App. 1
Dist-1992) 827 S.W.2d 72.
§ 14.34
Confinement of child support obligor for 40 days
while judgment of contempt and order of commit,
ment were prepared for court's signature did not
constitute a "short and reasonable time" of con-
finement. Ex parte Alford (App. 1 Dist1992) 827
S.W2d 72.
§ 14.34. Accrual of Interest on Delinquent Child Support
(a) Interest accrues on delinquent child support at the rate of 12 percent simple interest
per year from the date the support is delinquent until the date the support is paid, regardless
of whether the amount of child support in arrears has been reduced to judgment by the court
as provided by Section 14.41 of this code. A court that confirms the amount of child support
in arrears under Section 14.41 of this code shall include all prior arrears and the amount of
interest owed in the total amount confirmed.
(b) A child support payment is delinquent if the payment is not received by the obligee,
registry, or entity speed in the child support order before the 31st day after the payment
date stated in the order. If a payment date is not stated in the child support order, a child
support payment is delinquent if payment is not received by the obligee, registry, or entity
specified in the child support order on the date that an amount equal to the support payable
for one month becomes past due.
(c) Interest that accrues as provided by this section is part of the child support obligation
and may be collected by any means provided for the collection of child support. An amount
collected in excess of current support shall be applied, first, to interest and delinquent child
support that has not been reduced to judgment under Section 14.41 of this code and, second,
to interest and delinquent child support that has been reduced to judgment under Section
14.41 of this code.
Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 467, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg.. ch.
150, § 1, off. Sept 1, 1993.
Historical and Statutory Notes
1991 Legislation
Section 6 of the 1991 Act provides:
"This Act takes effect September 1, 1991, and
applies to child support due and owing after the
effective date of this Act"
1993 Legislation
The 1993 amendment rewrote this section, which
formerly read:
"Accrual of Prejudgment Interest on Child Sup-
port (a) Interest accrues on an unpaid child sup-
port obligation prior to judgment at the rate of 10
percent a year computed monthly. If a child
support payment is made before the 31st day after
the day that the payment is due, interest does not
accrue on the amount of child support that is paid
and that is 30 days or fewer overdue.
"(b) Prejudgment interest that accrues as pro-
vided by this section is part of the child support
obligation."
Section 3(b) and (c) of the 1993 amendatory act
provides:
"(b) ibis Act applies to child support payments
due on or after September 1, 1991, and any ac-
trued arrears which were owing on or after Sep.
tember 1, 1991, in:
"(1) an action commenced on or after the effect
tive date of this Act; or
"(2) a new trial or retrial following appeal of the
trial court's judgment in an action commenced
before the effective date of this Act
"(c) Judgments rendered prior to the effective
date of this Act in accordance with Section 14.41.
Family Code, shall bear interest at the rate speci-
fied in the applicable law in effect prior to the
effective date of this Act. and that law is continued
in effect only for this purpose."
Cross References
Child support arrearages, interest as part of
income withholding. see 14.43. 14.45.
'O~ _PAOE,~~_.
Domestic relations office, child sup rs rt am:zr-
ages, application of this section, see V.T.CA Hu-
man Resources Code. § 151.004.
Judgment for arrearages, see § 14.41.
f
1
i
r
E
t
f~
f
r
r
t
t
G
f
CONSERVATORSHIP. POSSESSION & SUPPORT § 14.41
Ch. 14
In halm-wx corpus proceeding by husband
seeking discharge from confinement for
failure to make child support payments.
husband had burden of presenting evidence
from which only one reasonable conclusion
could be drawn, i.e.. that he did not have
money and that he had no source from
which he might reasonably be expected to
obtain enough money to pay sum ordered.
Ex parte Loftin (Civ.App.1975) 522 S.W.2d
591.
Former husband, who was seeking habe-
as corpus relief from commitment order for
failure to pay child support. did not meet
burden of proving his inability to pay delin-
fluent support where evidence showed that
he owned real and personal property and
mark no attempt to sell it to pay support
and there was no evidence that he had
attempted to borrow necessary funds. F x
parte Lindsey Wiv.App.1978) -Al S.W.2d
-)12.
50. Mandamus
Remedy of former wife upon denial of
her motion to have former husband held in
contempt for failure to pay child support
was by mandamus and not by appeal. Blair
v. Blair (Crv.App.1966) 408 S.W.2d 257.
§ 14.41. Judgment for Past-Due Child Support Payments
(a) Judgment for Arrearages. On the motion of an obligee, after
notice and hearing, the court shall render judgment against an obligor
for any amount of child support unpaid and owing. The judgment may
be enforced by any means available for the enforcement of judgments
for debts.
(b) Time Limitations. The court may not enter a judgment for unpaid
child support payments that were due and owing more than 10 years
before the filing of the motion to render judgment under this section.
The court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment for past-due child
support obligations if a motion to render judgment for the arrearages is
filed within two years after:
(1) the child becomes an adult; or
(2) the date on which the child support obligation terminates pursu-
ant to the decree or order or by operation of law.
(c) Possession of Child by Obligor. If the managing conservator has
voluntarily relinquished to the obligor the actual care, control, and
possession of a child for a time period in excess of the court-ordered
periods of possession of and access to the child, the child support order
continues unabated until further order of the court as provided -by
Section 14.08 of this code. However, an obligor who has provided actual
support to the child during such time periods may seek reimbursement
for that support as a counterclaim or offset against the claim of the
managing conservator. An action against the managing conservator for
support supplied to a child shall be limited to the amount of periodic
payments previously ordered by the court.
(d) Retroactive Modification. The court may not reduce or modify the
amount of child support arrearages in rendering judgment under this
section.
Added by acts 1985, 69th Leg.. ch
2:32, a f.), eff. Sept. 1, 1985.
4100L ,s PACE.
s
• § 14.41 PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
Title 2
Law Review
Delinquent child support: Remedies, limi-
tations, and laches. 28 Baylor L.Rev. 197
(1976).
Enforcement of child support obligations
of absent parents. 30 Southwestern L J.
(Tex.) 625 (1976).
Enforcement of unpaid child support pay-
ments against decedent's estate. 32 Baylor
L.Rev. 269 (1980).
Commentariex
Full faith and credit, due process, and
family law litigation. William v. Dorsanen.
Ill. 36 Southwestern L.J. (Tex.) 1129
(19K3).
Garnishment of federal income for child
support and alimony obligations in Texas.
Brian T. Corrigan, 41 Texas Bar J., 245
(1978).
Library References
Divorce C-311.5. C.J.S. Husband and Wife § 625.
Husband and Wife -e-299Y.L C.J.S. Parent and Child 80 to 84. 89.
Parent and Child x13(7). (8). C.J.S. Paupers 60. 61.
C.J.S. Divorce § 322(1). West's Tex. Forms, Family Law, Ch. 6.
Dotes of Decisions
•
(Civ App.1977) 556 S W.2d 112, ref. n.r.e.
563 S.W.2d 238.
Subsection (c) of § 14.09 (repealed; see,
now, this section) which governed entitle-
ment to unpaid child support provided only
that unpaid child support might be reduced
to judgment and enforced by the same
means as a judgment for a debt, and not
that such sums were debts. Smith v. Bram-
hall (Sup.1978) 563 S.W.2d 238.
Since ex-wife showed a failure to comply
with divorce decree's child support provi-
sion, since ex-husband introduced no reason
why the arrearages should not be reduced
to judgment, and since § 14.09 conferred
power on the court to apply the requested
remedy, it was an abuse of discretion for
the court to deny ex-wife's request to re-
duce the unpaid support to judgment.
McPherson v. Townsend (Civ.App.1980) 593
S.W.2d 430.
Section 14.09(c) (repealed); see, now, this
section which provided that judgment for
unpaid child support may be enforced by
any means available for enforcement of
judgment for debts did not mean that judg-
ment became a debt; thus confinement un-
til payment was made did not violate Const
Art. 1, § 18, forbidding imprisonment for
debt. Ex parte Shaver (Civ.App.1980) 597
S.W.'2d 498.
Trial court's order reaffirming obligation
of parent to pay child support did not con-
stitute a "reduction to judgment," as under-
stood by subsec. (c) of § 14.09 (repealed;
see, now, this section) which required a
prior pleading to reduce support payments
to judgment, since it did not allow execution
in order to satisfy unpaid child support.
Norman v. Norman (App. 2 Dist.1985) 683
46L -S- _-PAGEAV/
In general 1
Ability to comply 10
Age of children, enforceability of support
orders 9
Bankruptcy 11
Children at age of majority 6
Deceased obligor 7
Defenses 12
Enforceability of support orders 8. 9
In general 8
Age of children 9
Estoppel 15
Garnishment 17
Interest 3
Laches or limitations 14
Presumptions and burden of proof 13
Remedies 3
Res judicata 16
Retroactive application 2
Review 18
Stipulations and agreements 5
1. In general
Where former husband repudiated obli-
gation to make further payments under di-
vorce decree ordering him to pay wife S50
per month for support of minor children
until the younger attained majority, deny-
ing court's jurisdiction to provide for sup-
port of children over 16 years of age, under
doctrine of anticipated breach, wife was en-
titled to recover future instalments that
would accrue before younger child attained
majority as well as past-due instalments.
Snipes y. Snipes (Civ.App.1943) 174 S.W.2d
741.
Unpaid child support is a debt for which
judgment may be taken. Smith v. Bramhall
It' h
4•
4. Interest
CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION & SUPPORT
Ch. 14
S.W.2d .548, reversed on other grounds 692
S.W.2d 6:55.
Constitutional protections necessary in
proceeding based on motion for contempt
are not required in a proceeding that result%
solely in an order which reduces child sup-
port arrearage to money judgment. Craw-
ford v. Gardner (App. 5 Dist.1985) 690
S.W.2d 296.
2. Retroactive application
Section 14.09 (a) and (b) (repealed) which
provided means for enforcing child support
order including allowing court to render
judgment against defaulting party for any
amount unpaid and owing applied to child
support payments that accrued under court
decrees prior to section's effective date.
Harrison v. Cox (Civ.App.1975) 524 S.W.2d
387, ref. n.r.e.
Action to reduce unpaid child support to
judgment under provisions of,subsec. (c) of
§ 14.09 (repealed; see, now, this section)
was retroactive, in that it applied to child
support payments accruing under orders
made prior to its effective date. Hootchens
v. Matthews (Civ.App.1977) 557 S.W.2d 581,
error dismissed.
3. Remedies
Trial court, in proceeding on divorced
wife's complaint seeking, inter alia, judg-
ment for debt for unpaid child support and
adjudication of contempt against divorced
husband for failure to make child support
payments, erred in granting defendant's
motion for instructed verdict, even though
prior order of court had terminated parent-
child relationship between defendant and
subject children of support order, since
§ 14.09 (see, now, § 14.30 et seq.) did not
require that court be authorized to hold
defaulting parent in contempt of court be-
fore court could render judgment against
him for delinquent child support payments.
Walker v. Sheaves (Civ. app 1976) 533
S.W.2d 87.
Support orders may be enforced either by
contempt or by judgment for the amount o
delinquent payments; the optional remedies
operate both independently and concurrent-
ly. Stephens v Stephens (Cis app 1976
043 S.W 2d 686
Motion to reduce delinquent child suppor
payments to judgment and motion for con
tempt could be brought concurrently an
such remedies could be concurrently or
tiered Frank Reese (Civ app 1979) 59
S.W.'2d 119
§ 14.41
Note 6
Rate of interest to be applied to past-due
child support payments and to be applied in
determining present value of unmatured
child support payments was six percent per
annum. Lee v. Lee (Civ.App.1974) 50S)
F.W.2d 92'2, ref. n.r.e.
In action in which former wife pled con-
tract that provided for child support pay-
ments and was incorporated in divorce de-
cree and in which wife sought recovery
under the contract by seeking to have un-
paid child support reduced to judgment.
wife was entitled to recover prejudgment
interest on the judgment from date on
which child became 18 years of age and the
child support obligation ended, though wife
had not specifically pled for interest.
Saums v. Synoground (Civ.App.1980) 605
S.W.2d 373.
5. Stipulations and agreements
Where order recited that the parties
agreed that ex-husband could purge himself
of contempt by making monthly payments
to be applied on arrearage child support in
addition to his regular payments and follow-
ing order he made his payments regularly,
trial court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing later to grant judgment for unpaid
balance of arrearage child support Patillo
v. Palmer (Civ.App.1976) 539 S.W.2d 88.
Although parties to proceeding to reduce
divorced father's child support obligation
stipulated that accumulated child support
arrearage was $6,123, such stipulation was
not improperly disregarded when court en-
tered judgment for delinquent support in
amount of only $3,083 where stipulation
only related to sum which would be due if
motion for retroactive modification were
overruled, which it was not. Casterline v.
Burden (Civ.App.1977) 560 S.W2d 499.
6. Children at age of majority
Fact that two of the four children, whose
custody had been awarded to the mother in
f divorce proceeding and for which the father
was originally ordered to pay $50 a week
s support had reached the age of 18 did not
deprive court of jurisdiction to order hus-
band to pay $10 per week on the accrued
unpaid installments of child support in addi-
t tion to the previously ordered support pay-
menL%. notwithstanding{ Vernon's Ann.
d Ci%.St art. 46:39a (repealed; see, now.
11 05, 11.1:3, 14.(1:3, 14 05(a), 14 08a, and
4 14 :30 et se(l) which gave trial court jurisdic-
tion to order ,upport paymenL% for children
r
1~1~
r;^ K-l
THE FOLLOWING
DOCUMENT
IS THE BEST IMAGE
POSSIBLE
DUE TO
THE POOR QUALITY
OF THE ORIGINAL
•
•
~J
:D
e,2.
Ito;
rte
ba-
116•- j
.of
ist:
24
er- ,
A
.
at- :
rte
on.
rut
rte
OR&
Ju_
an_
e
11)'_
ith:
sa_
wn
old
try
~a-
ce,
be
70
PARENT AND CHILD § 14.41
Title 2'
resources to pay child support and did not show prior order, where obligor did not challenge trial
inability to purge himself of contempt. Ex parte court's finding that obligor was able to pay month-
Chennault (App. 6 Disi1989) 776 S.W2d 703. ly amounts ordered. Ex parte Duncan (App. 1
Evidence that father who was held in contempt Dist.1990) 796 S.W2d 562
for fading to pay child support, arreamge was of Appeals did not have authorityto find
unable to borrow necessary amount from friends, Court relatives and financial -institutions and had been that father held in. contempt for fading to pay child
incarcerated for 20 days was sufficient to establish support arrearages proved statutory requirements
that he did not have resources necessary to pay for inability to pay based solely on affidavit filed
arrearage, entitling him to habeas relief from con- with his writ of habeas corpus to Court of Appeals
tempt order confining him until he paid arrearage, corroborated with time he spent in jail. Ex parte
Ex parte Mabry (App.1 Dist.1990) 792 S.W2d 588. Icing (App. 14 Dist.1991) 819 S.W2d 944.;
Child support obligor has burden to' demonstrate 49 Presumptions and burden of proof; habeas
inability to perform remedial conditions imoosed in
contempt order by trial court,•.ia:an.attempt, to corpus
coerce,obligor to satisfy his outstanding child sup- In order. for husband to be released in habeas
port obligations.-- Ex parte Duncan=(App.,:L;Dist, corpus action, after he had been held in contempt
1990).796 S.W2d b62 ,5; ' _ and sentenced to jail for violation of orders entered
-Trial court's.contempt order; directing child sup. in support proceeding, trial court's order-.of com-
port obligor .-to pay- monthly; amounts toward ar- mitment must be void, either because it was be-
rearages ; and ;-to , pay obligor's :,current - monthly yond the power of the court to enter or because it
child support obligationsias condition of probation, deprived husband of his liberty without due pro-
was not void on ground that obligor -did rot have cess of law. Ex parte Friedman (App. 8 Dist1991)
current ability to pay, entire,arretarageas found in 808 S.W2d 166. - ' -
14A Judgiiierit'forDelin"queht'Child Support Payments
(a) Judgment for Arrearages- A•periodic child support payment:not:timely.made ~shall
constitute a final -judgment for.the amount due and owing, including interest as provided by
Section 14.34 of this code. -On the motion.of an obligee or obligor; after notice and hearing,
the court shall confirm the-amount•of child support-in a'rrea'rs and shall render one euniulative
judgment against an obligor-for,all ;child-support unpaid and owing, :including interest•as
provided-by Section 14.34--of-11iis!•code;= and any, balance owed - on previously . confirmed
Varages,. lump • sum, :-o r~retroactive'siu J rt judgments. • The judgment rendered -by the
t'may be subject to.a counte~'or offset as provided by Subsection (c) of thi§'section:
The judgment may be enfoi ced'by any, 'Weans available for the enforcement 'of judgments for
debts -and by,an:,order_of the court.requiring that income be withheld "from' the -disposable
earnings of the obligor in a reasonable amount to satisfy the judgment. --A.'couit)order
enforcing the judgment through the withholding of disposable earnings of the obligor must
comply with the requirements of Section ,14.43 of this,code.. The court shall order that a
reasonable amount of income be withheld ' from the disposable earnings of the obligor to be
applied toward the liquidation - of- any child support arrearages, notwithstanding. that a
judgment for arrears has been entered against the obligor.
(b) Time Limitations. The court of continuing jurisdiction retains jurisdiction to confirm
the total amount of child support in arrears and enter judgment for past-due child support
obligations if a motion to render judgment for the arrearages is filed within four years after.
la- (1) the child becomes an adult; or
st-
to (2) the date on which the child support obligation terminates pursuant to the decree*or
order or by operation of law.
IN (c) Possession of Child by Obligor. If the managing conservator has voluntarily relin-
at garshed to the obligor the actual care control, and
possession of a child for a time period in
his7
39) excess of the court-ordered periods of possession of and access to the child, the child support
order continues unabated until further order of the court as provided by Section 14.08 of this
ar- code. However, an obligor who has provided actual support to the child during such time
to periods may seek reimbursement for that support as a counterclaim or offset against the
ier claim of the managing conservator. An action against the managing conservator for support
supplied to a child shall be limited to the amount of periodic payments previously ordered by
k the court
(d) Retroactive Modification. The court may not reduce or modify the amount of child
f O, - support arrearages in rendering judgment under this secti0V 0 PAGR
f
r
Y
14:41
_ PARENT AND CHILD
Title !
(e) Cumulative Judgment. - A cumulative judgment confirming the amount of a child
support arrearage under this section shall include the unpaid balance owed on previously
'
determined arrearages
or judgments for child
support, including interest on the arrearage
and judgment as of a specified date, and shall state that it is a cumulative judgment.
Amended by Acts 1986, 69th Leg, 2nd C.S, ch. 10, §
6, elL Jan. 1, 1987, Acts 1989, 71st Leg, 1st CS,
ch. 25, § 28, off. Nov. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 43, § 1, eM Sept 1, 1991; Ads 1991. ?2nd Leg,
ch. 467. 12, eM Sept 1, 1991; Ads 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 798, § 14, efL Sept 1, 1993. .
- Historical and Statutory Notes
1986 Legislation- . "
For effective date and applicability prvvoKm of
The 1986 amendment, in subse
c
(a), added the
Ads 1991, 72nd Leg, ch. 467, see note. following
_
_
rust ' sentence, ' fn the' resulting 'second 'sentence
§ 14.34.
inserted "or obligor" and "confirm the amount of
1993 Legislation -
child support in arrears and shall" and inserted the
The 1993 amendment; in the -section' heading,
third sentence; : and, iri .,the first'-sentence of the
-
substituted "delinquent" for -pastdde";'=m`subsee
introductory language of subset. (b), inserted "con-
(a), in the second sentence, inserted "doer cuiiula=
firm the-amount-of•child'suppbrt in arrears and
tive", substituted "all" for-"any amount or"'ind
may not!.
•
-
:
inserted any balance owed-on previously eon.
• - --tit:-••
~•F~•'otS:. 7r
7i
lt
= 1989 atioa j
,
firmed arreamges; lump sum; or retroactive-sup.
j -
port judgments"; in the- fourth • sentence'substitart.
The 1989 amendmen
m subsea
_ (b),
substituted
ed "and" for "or" and substituted "a reasorable
Your" for "two", - , ; ; _ : • .
amount" for " an amount sufficient", and•added the
1991 Legislation' ,
fifth sentence relating to an income withholding
,j
Ads 1991, 72nd Leg, cg 43; fn subsee: (a), ua the'
order. rewrote, the introductory clause of zubsec
'(b); and added subset. (e), 6kt-mg'to a cuniiilative
fourth sentence; added "or by-an order of the court
judgment.', - - - - : : 1, i,:ii - I. • - -
requiring that income be withheld from-the dispos- -
- The introductory clause•of subset. (b) previously
able earnings of the obligor,in •an amount sufficient ; ,
read.. R,
to satisfy, the., judgment ; andthe last sentence.
"The court may not confirm the amount .of child
,Acts, 1991; _72ud,,1eg,:cha-467; :in..,subsea (a);
support in arrears and may not.enter a-judgment ,
inserted "including-interest as -provided by Section
for unpaid child support payments that were. due
14.34 of this=code" • in , the,- first . and second sen-
and owing more than 10 years ,before the fr'h'ng of
tences, : inserted , "or: by, an-, order of ,the , coil t _
the motion to render judgment under this 'section
requiring that income be.withheld fiom the;dispos-
The :court 'retains jurisdiction 'to enterJ judgment
'
be earnings of the: pbligor in'an amount sufficient
for
past due child support obligations if a~motioa to
a
a fourth' sentence,
render judgment for the arrearages is filed within
added rthe fifth senteaoe_-
four years after." _ = .
Library References ! - - - - -
Divorce G-3ll.5..-• - ' = - - - -
C.J.S. Divorce 706.707, 721.:
Parent and Child 4-33(8).
C.J.S. Parent and Child H 80 to 89.
Notes of Decisions
Discretion of court 24
Enforceability of support orders B. 85. 9
Final decree &5
Evidence 126
Final decree, enforceability of support orders
8.5
Jurisdiction 1.5
Modification by parents S.6
Motions 5.4
Notice 2.5
Offsets 125
Reimbursement 6.5
Retroactive modification 55
vo PAQE_#34
Unreasonable hardship lO.S
1. In general
Due process protections necessary in contempt .
proceeding are not required in proceeding that
results solely in order which reduces child support
arrearage to money judgment. Jordan v. Kx0e-
ton (App. 4 Dist1988) 762 SW2d 339.
'Dial court improperly entered judgment against
former husband for retroactive child support
award, where former wife did not make motion
seeking judgment against former husband. and
there was no indication in record that specific _
notice was given to former husband that judgment
was being sought against him, nor was there any
particular hearing held which would have afforded
a "
1
I
j
r
j
r
c
t
c
1
I
t
i
• 2
Id
ly
ge
IL
16
•
•
-of
ng
ez
Ii-
nd
rQ-
4_
at-
pie
;he
mg
ive
sly
did
Wt
tae
. Cif
ca
e~t
Ito
his
npt
hat
ort
dle-
inSt
Xort
Lion
and
cific
lent
any
ded
PARENT AND CHILD
Title 2
former husband opportunity to present evidence of
how much support,- if any, he had contributed for
benefit of children during period between filing of
former wife's motion to mrdify and award. Rocha
v. Villarreal (App. 4 Dist.1989) 766 S.W2d 895.
Family code provisions which deny district court
the authority to forgive child support arrearages,
prohibit self-help by parents in prospectively modi-
fying-- court-ordered child support - without • court
approval, and expressly require that parental
agreements concerning child support be approved
by court based upon whether. agreement- is in
child's best interest indicate that -legislature in-
tended that court exercise independent Judgment
and'-closely= supervise'-proceedings -to' guarantee
that" best interest- of child • is'alwaysllconsidered.
Williams v. Patton'(Sup1991) 821 S.W2d f41,-_re-
Leari;ig wemiled
Past-due child support is more properlycharac-
terized, as unfulfilled. duty: to ,child than debt- to
custodial parent; paymentof arrearagps,conipen-
sates for wrong to' child, in form of loss .of funds
avallable'for•'child's.Xood, clothing,_eduration,:and
`home; environment, . at least -*as much ; as - it r6in-
6ursesiciisoparent for monies•spent'on"child.
Wmiams r.,Patton (Sup.1991) 821 S.W2d.141,'re-
hearing overruled.
1.5. Jurisdiction
BY filing original answer to, divorced wife's mo-
boa' to', Bold gum iri contemptt husband `appealed
in cause and suVinitted_to jurisdiction'of
an
court to enforce child suppoit`obligation"botli as
originally requested, by,•holding husband'in cou-
tempt and~by ieducirig, obligatiori_to' judgment in
accordance with wife's amended'motigh husband's
geiieial' pppearar ce' by "vvritzen=,an_swer,obviated
any necessity for issuance, service, "and%retisn of
citation respecting amended motion _=Jones v.,_
(App • 3 Dist.1990) 798 S.W2d SK'error'de-
2 Retroactive application
Missouri ten-year statute of limitations, to en-
force child support judgment applied to action by
wife to register and enforce Missouri child support
judgments, even though Texas courts only retained
continuing jurisdiction over Texas child support
judgment for two years following child's adoption,
since Texas limitation did not apply to foreign
judgments; thus, trial court had jurisdiction to
register and enforce Missouri judgments for past-
due child support which were confirmed less than
ten years after support order was made. Omick v.
Hoerchler (App. 4 Dist.1991) 809 S.W2d 758, error
denied
U. Discretion of court
Trial court acts as mere scrivener in mechanical-
ly tallying up amount of child support arrearage.
Lewis v Lewis (App. 14 Dist.1993) 853 S.W2d 850.
Amount of arrearage in child support obligation
to be paid each month is determined by court and
is subject to review for abase of discretion. -Starck
§ 14.41
Note b.4
25. Notice ,
Notice to ex-husband pertinent to wage assign-
ment and reduction of arrearages, in child support
payments due under divorce decree, to judgment
was sufficient when amended pleadings containing
the wage assignment-and reduction to judgment
requests were served upon ex-husband's attorney
of record. Jordan v. Middleton (App. 4 Dist.1988)
762 S.W2d 339. - - .
Trial court must make finding - that circum-
stances are appropriate in order to order withhold-
ing of wages to pay off back child support. State
on Behalf of Clanton v. Clanton (App. 14 Dist.1991)
807 S.W2d
Trial court could properly order wage withhold-
ing for arrearages in former husband'spaymenit of
child -support; husband's (obligation to' pay, child
support did not'terminate when one'of his" chndki
reached majority, former wife testified that she did
not receive payment for child 'support for October
1989, and that husband was more than 30 days
behind in his payments 'when she fled motion for
contempt on November 20, 1989: ' Givss v. Gross
(App. 14 Dist.19911 808 S.W2d 215:,
3. -Remedies:
` Remedies for pursuance of delinquent child anP-
port provided by Family Code sections regarding
enforcement by contempt of child supportorders
and judgment for past-due child support payments
are remedies only which do not imposelegal liabili-
ty on obligee. to support his .child; the obligation
was created by divorce decree fixing child support.
In Interest of -Dickinson. (App.: 7. Dist1992) .829
Remedies- for -delinquent child support-%which
may be pursued- by- obligee •d--either-either
contempt or obtaining judgment for arrearage are
separate and distinct; however, pursuance of rem-
edy of judgment for arrearage does not ex e
enforcement of same obligation by contempt.. In
Interest of Dickinson (App. 7 D_ ist.1992) - 829
S.W2d 919.
4. Interest
Upon determining that obligor was in arrears
for failing to make child support payments from
August 5, 1983 through March 2, 19W. obligee was
entitled to prejudgment interest as matter of right
Medrano v. Medrano (App. 4 Dist1991) 810 S W2d
426.
5. Stipulations and agreements U
Ten-year limitations period for enforcement of
court order for child support was not applicable to
cause of action to enforce child support agreement
which was not subject of order by family court, but
was simply a contract for child support Hollander
v. Capon (App. 1 Dist1993) 853 S.W2d 723, re-
hearing denied, error denied. AD
5.4. Motions
Amended motions are authorized in proceedings
for enforcement of child support obligation. either
1... wwMn,w..~ n~ 1... ~w.i..w:ww nl.liwwtiww •w wrlw
e~
R
i
f
t
1
a.aw~
SISTER SPOUSES
I ISTE GRANDS014
TMC211 E'
RUNT GGREAT
AFFINITY IGNSHIP
SECOM DEGREE MOTHER
Relationship by Marriage
The chart below shows
• Affinity lGnship (relationship by marriage)
• Consanguinity Kinship (relationship by sEOONOOEWOM
blood)for purposes of interpreting nepotism as
defined in VTCA Government Code, Chapter SPOUSES SOTEMS GRAND
573. §§573.021 -.025. FATHER
FIRST DEGREE
SPOUSES
covic 09=41TEA as-04" yqUs
ur ""w pr.w
OFFXXR
SO*4* AM oftKo fm
Ia"W
SPOUSES rs+oTMa SPOUSES
D L
SPOUSE MOTHER
ST DEGREE
GREAT
MOTHER FAGRAM
TTER
MR=
GRAND
DWx*nTR
04=4M
GREAT
GRAND
DAUGHTER
GRAMM
GREAT
GRAM"
i
GUINIT'Y IGNSHIP
lationship by Blood
asCl Mcc mnp dPUWAmmis • MWWPwda*oMaW1xTaosCriesi10Cbmfia
VOL PAa 6
r
01/22/93
15:21 ATTORNEY GEN/MINlON5 5124632110 002
~o~NS~•c ~
a
'TFx~a.
(Office of tf a 21ttornep Genera(
Otate of 19exag
January 22, 1993
DAN MORALES
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Honorable Bill Turner
District Attomey
Brazos County
300 East 26th Street. Suite 310
Brazos County Courthouse
Bryan, Texas 77803
Dear)&. Turner.
Letter Opinion No. 93-5
Re: Whether a county commissioner or
other members on the county commissioners
court may vote to approve the sheriff's
decision to hire the commissioner's nephew
as a deputy sheriff (M# 18353)
You ask whether a county sheriff may hire for employment as a deputy sheriff the
nephew of a county commissioner. The nepotism statute, V.T.C.S. article 5996x,
• prohibits a county commissioner as a public "officer" from appointing, voting for, or
confirming the appointment of a person who is related to him within the prohibited degree„
or who is related within the prohibited degree to "any other member" of the
commissioners court.
The question you pose was addressed in Letter Advisory No. 116 (1975), which
declared that on the basis of V.T.C.S. article 3902 the commissioners court and all of its
members were specifically enjoined from attempting to influence a hiring decision by
another county official. Because of this prohibition, a sheriff could hire as an employee a
relative of a county commissioner without violating the nepotism statute.' Article 3902
has been repealed and codified as section 151.004 of the Local Government Code which
provides:
The commissioners court or a member of the court may not
attempt to influence- the appointment of any person to an employee
position authorized by the court.
Thus, since members of the commissioners court are specifically precluded from
participating in the shertfPs hlriag process, it necessarily follows that they have no role in
that process for purposes of the nepotism statute.
'For parposcs d this opinion, we need not decide wh«ha the acpod m Hama would predede
• the hiring of a rduive of a cent qr ommisde= to woke as an Lndcpmdeat eonuaetor is Oc s6 dit
aMm or to the comy jail. Sm Attorney General Opinion DM-111(1992) at 2.
VO{LS_ PAOE,,~17.
4j
F
• ra
i
i
t
C~
P
- e1/22/93 15:22 ATTORNEY GETIAPINIQNF 512463211e tai
Honorable Bill Turner - Page 2 (LO-93-5)
Since the sm utory basis for the decision in Letter Advisory No. 116 is still extant
and since we are not persuaded that the rationale of that opinion is ineonvct it is our
opinion that a sheriff is not prohibited from hiring for employment as a deputy sheriff the
nephew of a county commissioner= We caution, however. that V.T.C.S. article 59960
prohibits the practice of trading and similar evasions of the nepotism law. See Letter
Advisory No. 116.
M M A
l
t
Since members of the commissioners court have no authority
over the hiring and firing of employees of the sheriff and are
specifically prohibited from acting in any way to influence the
employment of such persons, a sheriff is not precluded from hiring
for the position of deputy sheriff' the nephew of a county
commissioner.
Yours very truly.
Rick Gilpin
Deputy Chief
Opinion Committee
i
sAUamey Genend Opinion JM-SOI (IM b ratio the wm=y. In that vpido=. tMs eM= bdd
that the eepodsm statate prowts an ez ofrluo road aommiweaer fMM Was an on of atfo~
eomml&sloaer Ia that dumlon, the ultimate sut to We and tare rated with a Maw cowxAsslooer
acting wukr ft drrecnon of 0c commkwoners own rather thaw with an independently etoctod couati►
official.
VO S PAGE,,,¢3 S