BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 626
By: Coleman
03-31-95
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

County judges in Texas have numerous administrative and ministerial
duties requiring signatures or other official actions.  Several
examples of this are approving beer or liquor licenses, signing
contracts on behalf of the commissioners court, and signing
emergency orders.  

In various sections, the Alcoholic Beverage Code gives county
judges the authority to delegate their power for approving beer or
liquor licenses to someone else.  In very populous counties, where
county judges are faced with significant demands on their time, it
is not always practical for the county judge to personally sign
every administrative order and, like the Alcoholic Beverage Code,
these judges should have the option of delegating certain
ministerial or administrative functions to someone else.

PURPOSE

This bill gives the county judge the ability to delegate to another
county officer or county employee the ability to sign orders or
other official documents as specified by the county judge.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency or institution.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1.  Adds Section 81.029 to the Local Government Code to
give the county judge in a county with a population of more than
one million the right to delegate to another county officer or
employee the ability to sign orders or other official documents on
behalf of the judge.  The section also gives the judge the right to
revoke the delegated authority or transfer it to someone else at
any time.

SECTION 2.  Emergency clause.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The original bill added Section number 81.028. The committee
substitute was renumbered to correctly reflect that Section number
81.029 is being added to Chapter 81, Subchapter B, Local Government
Code.

The original bill applied to counties with a population of more
that 2.4 million. The committee substitute applies to counties with
a population of more than one million.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

HB 626 was considered by the County Affairs Committee in a public
hearing on 3/29/95. Representative Coleman opened and closed. The
County Affairs Committee considered a complete substitute to HB
626. The substitute was adopted without objection. HB 626 was
reported favorably, as substituted, with the recommendation that it
do pass and be printed and be sent to the Committee on Local and
Consent Calendars, by a record vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 1
absent.