ATTORNEY GENERAL Under provisions set out in the Texas Constitution, the Texas Government Code, Title 4, sec.402.042 and numerous statutes, the attorney general is authorized to write advisory opinions for state and local officials. These advisory opinions are requested by agencies or officials when they are confronted with unique or unusually difficult legal questions. The attorney general also determines, under authority of the Texas Open Records Act, whether information requested for release from governmental agencies may be held from public disclosure. Requests for opinions, opinions, and open record decisions are summarized for publication in the Texas Register. The Attorney General responds to many requests for opinions and open records decisions with letter opinions. A letter opinion has the same force and effect as a formal Attorney General Opinion, and represents the opinion of the Attorney General unless and until it is modified or overruled by a subsequent letter opinion, a formal Attorney General Opinion, or a decision of a court of record. To request copies of opinions, phone (512) 462-0011. To inquire about pending requests for opinions, phone (512) 463-2110. Letter Opinion LO-95-044 (ID#-29960). Request from Ron Allen, Executive Director, Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, 1946 South IH-35, Suite 306, Austin, Texas 78704-3644, concerning whether the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is authorized to collect a $200 "professional fee" in addition to examination and licensing fees, and related questions. Summary of Opinion. The Veterinary Licensing Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 8890, sec.19, gives the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the Board) broad discretion to promulgate a rule establishing fees provided that the fees are "reasonable and necessary," and "in aggregate, produce sufficient revenue to cover the costs of administering" the Act. Section 19 does not authorize the board to impose the $200 "professional fee" collected under a repealed version of the Act, sec.22. TRD-9509880 Opinions DM-354 (RQ-658). Request from Honorable John Vance, Dallas County District Attorney, Frank Crowley Courts Building, LB 19, Dallas, Texas 75207-4313, concerning whether an attorney to represent an indigent capital murder defendant in a post conviction habeas corpus proceeding, and related questions. Summary of Opinion. The Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), Article 1.051(d)(3) expressly authorizes counsel to represent an indigent capital defendant in a post conviction habeas corpus proceeding under the Code, Article 11.07 "if the court concludes that the interests of justice require representation." The statutory right to counsel under Article 1.051 includes the right to the assistance of counsel in making "adequate preparation for the proceeding." Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 1.051(a). A trial court has a ministerial duty to award attorney fees (the amount awarded being discretionary), upon submission of a fee request in proper form, to counsel appointed pursuant to the Code, Article 26.05. The Commissioners Court of Dallas County has a ministerial duty to direct payment of such an award of attorney fees ordered by a Dallas County trial court if the award comports with the fee schedule for Dallas County, unless the commissioners court can show that the court's award is so unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of discretion. A trial court may appoint only licensed attorneys pursuant to the Code, Article 26.04 and therefore may not appoint an agency or association to provide counsel to a defendant. There is no legal impediment, however, to a trial court's request that an agency or association- including an entity located outside the county of the appointing court-procure a qualified attorney who is willing to provide counsel to an indigent defendant who has a right to counsel under Article 1.051. Still, when a trial court relies on an agency or association to recommend lawyers to appear as counsel for criminal defendants, the trial court should review the qualifications of the lawyers proffered by the agency or association, to the extent necessary for the court to determine that the lawyers have the requisite ability and experience, and should appoint the lawyers by formal designation pursuant to Article 26.04. TRD-9509881 DM-355 (RQ-708). Request from Honorable Tom Craddick, Chair, Committee on Ways and Means, Texas House of Representatives, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910, concerning whether the cash lease method of valuation of open-space land comports with the Texas Constitution, Article VIII, sec.1-d-1. Summary of Opinion. The valuation methods for calculating "net to land" in determining the appraised value of open-space land set forth in the Tax Code, sec.sec.23.51-23.57, comport with Texas Constitution, Article VIII, sec.1-d-1. The valuation methods for calculating "net to land" described in the comptroller's Manual for the Appraisal of Agricultural Land, including the cash lease method, reflect the valuation methods set forth by the legislature in the Tax Code, sec.23.51(4). TRD-9509882 DM-356 (RQ-745). Request from William Grossenbacher, Administrator, Texas Employment Commission, 101 East 15th Street, Austin, Texas 78778-0001, concerning authority of the Texas Employment Commission to transfer or assign a lien or notice of assessment based on unpaid wages, under the Labor Code, Chapter 61, to the wage claimant. Summary of Opinion. The Texas Employment Commission lacks authority to transfer or assign a lien or notice of assessment based on unpaid wages, under the Labor Code, Chapter 61, to the wage claimant. The wage claimant may not directly get execution on a lien or notice of judgment held by the commission in the name of the state. TRD-9509883 DM-357 (RQ-791). Request from Carole Wayland, Midland County Auditor, 200 West Wall, Midland, Texas 79701, concerning whether a county auditor may require the county attorney to prepare and submit, for inclusion in the county budget, a projection of revenues and expenditures for the county attorney hot-check fund for the following fiscal year and related questions. Summary of Opinion. The county attorney's fee fund, accumulated pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 102.007 is wholly outside of the county budgeting process. The county judge, or the county auditor on behalf of the county judge, may not require the county attorney to submit a budget for use of the county attorney's fee fund for the upcoming fiscal year. The Local Government Code, sec.114.002(2)(A) authorizes a county auditor to establish the manner in which a county official must report office fees the official received and expended in the past. The plain language of sec.114.002(2) (A) does not permit a county auditor to require a county official to project amounts the official will collect and will disburse in the future. TRD-9509884 DM-358 (RQ-671). Request from Honorable Mike Driscoll, Harris County Attorney, 1001 Preston, Suite 634, Houston, Texas 77002-1891, concerning whether service by delivery to the premises under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 742a constitutes valid service of citation in a suit for rent joined with a suit for forcible detainer. Summary of Opinion. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 739, 742, and 742a, the rules for issuance and service of citation in forcible entry and detainer actions and forcible detainer actions, do not apply to suits for rent that are joined with forcible detainer actions. To subject a defendant to a justice court's personal jurisdiction in a rent action that is joined with a forcible detainer action, citation must be issued and served in compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 534 and 536, the rules for issuance and service of citation in ordinary civil proceedings. Therefore, unless the defendant has waived service by stipulation or appearance, the justice court does not have personal jurisdiction to grant relief in a suit for rent that is joined with a forcible detainer action if citation was not so issued and served. TRD-9509885 Requests for Opinions (RQ-834). Request from Robert S. Martin, Director and Librarian, Texas State Library, P.O. Box 12927, Austin, Texas 78711-2927, concerning whether the State Library and Archives Commission may deny federal grant funds to a municipal library under certain circumstances. (RQ-835). Request from Honorable John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts, LBJ State Office Building, Austin, Texas 78774, concerning eligibility of state judges for "benefit replacement pay," and related questions. (RQ-836). Request from Mike Moses, Commissioner of Education, Texas Education Agency, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701-1494, concerning whether recent amendments to the Education Code prohibit a school district from entering into an insurance contract for a period of more than 12 months, and related questions. TRD-9509879