:!27/2009 10:24 512-472-F ;,~ OPINION CO"•4MITTEE P4GE 01/04
F 1
~. '~'ORNEX CirEN~RA~. OF TEXAS
GZtEG .ABBOTT
Opinion ~ommittoe
p.Q. ~ox l254~
~us~in, ~exas 787l-2548
Te~ep~one: t512~ 4G3-2!!~
~acsimi~e: ~512~ p.7e-658

;~e~iver ~mme~rate~y ~o:
• Thy ~--lonora'~~e ibex .~mersan ~~o
err our: ty ~~~orney 7~2-~,~,~~
~um~er o ~a es, Inc~u~ir, ,'pis over a e:
n'~s: ~o~~ovving cover see= ~Yase see t~e ~~tomney '~-~,eTM1erAI ~plt3i0;'i
issue today.
~~"~'~~
-utume re er~ence ~anc~ your convenience} ~~~omneu ~e^era~ pinions can ~e searc~ec~, vievrec~
and printed ~rorr; .,urn agency ~xrebsi~e: vvww. ~exasa~torneygeneral.gcv
you c~o not receive ~egi6~e copies of a~~ t~?e pages, n~ease ca~~ i~~l2~ !.l.J~,21i0.
84/27/2809 1©: 24 512-472-6538 OPINION COMMITTEE
'Iq~ ~
U n ` /~
t {~
t.,.r4AfA
.f~.T`~'OR1`1EY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABS OTT'
April 27, 2005
PAGE 82/04
The I~onorable Rex $rrzerson Opinion'vo. GA-0711
Kerr County Attorney
County Courlhousc, Suite $A-103 Re: Det~r~tiotz of "audit" for purposes of section
700 Main, Street 775.082, Death azzd Safety Code (RQ-0759-GA)
KezTVi.he, Texas 7$028
Dear Mr. ,Emerson:
You initially ask us to define the term "audit" as it is used ixx section 773.082 of the Health
and Safety Code.' Section 775.082 requires an emergency services district to file art "audit repast
of [itsJ fiscal accounts and records" with the specified cor_lrnissioners courts. TLX. ~FqT-TH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. § 775.0g2(b) (Vernon Supp. 2008). 'l'1?e audit is to be prepared by "an
indcpcndcnt certified public accouzztazzt ... licezzsed in tl"9is state, utiless the collZlTlissioners court
by order requires the audit t~-~ be perforzxzed by the coon. ~ auditor [by a specified date j." Id
§ 775.082(c). You statethat is =ues arise when the county auditor i s also a certified public accountant
("CP.A,") and subject to the CPA. rules of professional co~7duct, including standards concerning
independence. See Request Fetter at 1-2. Thus, the question ~~ltimaiely raised in your request letter
is "whether the County Audi ic~r wlzo is x CPA can etl,zcally perfortxz az~ a=.zdit as directed under
[chapter] 775." Id. at 2.
Tice Texas State Board of Public Accountancy ("TSBPA"), the agency charged with
regulatingthepublicxccountaa~cyprofessiorz,hasansweredtl{at question. SeeTEX.OCC.CpDEANi~'.
§ § 941.051(Vezzzon 2000 (prt>>vidizzg :for TSBPA. hoard), 901. ? > 1(a)(l) (nrovidiytg that Board shall
adzxzizz.ister chapter 901). In its briefing submitted to our office, the TSBPA cites to section
901.004(x), pccupations Code, ~~vhich provides that tl.e ?ublic Accountancy Act does not: "(1)
restzict an official act of a perwoit acting in the person's c_~'~Cevity as: (A) all orricer o~'tlie state or of
a county, znunicipxlity, or other political subdivision, itxcluczzzg a county auditor; ..." TSBPA Brief
at l-? (citing Tex. OCC. Cori ~~.Nra. § 901.004(x) (Vcz~on. 2004)). Based orz this pro~~isiozz, the
TSBPA. states that
it is our belie+. that the Kerr County Auditor ?ctirg izz l-~er capacity
pursuant to a state law which requires the performance of an audit,
even if it means an audit not in compliance vv~tl; *,lxis agency's
'Request Letter at Z (m~a: r' able at http:/hvww.tcxasattorn~y~~L::wr i.~~w}.
~4/ 1 // lbby 1b: 14 511-4 /1-65.',~i OPINIOhi COMMITTEE PAGE 03/04
The Ilozxarable Rex Emerson -Page 2
(GA-0711 }
attestation standards, would not be in violation of the Public
Accountancy Act or tl~e regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act.
Id. at Z. With its brief, the TSBPA, indicates that it effectively construes sectian 901.004 to except
a county auditor, when acting in the capacity of county a.uditar, from the regulation. of the Public
Accountancy .Act and regulations and standards adapted tlereLu-zder.
"An administrative agency's canstruction or interpretatioza of a statute, which the agency is
charged with enforcing, is entitled to serious consideration $y xeviewiy~g courts, so long as that
construction is reasonable and does not contradict the plain language ofthe statute." F.1.ores >>. Lmps.
Ret. Sys., 74 S.W.3d 532, 545 (Tex. App. Austin 2002, pet. denied}. Tlxe TSBPA's construction
ofsection 901.004 does not contradict tl~e plain, language ofthc sectian. The TS>3PA's constriction
is not unreasonable in that it respects the autonomous natt~:e of the office of eauzxty attditor a_nd
balances that ol'Fee's statutory duties against obligations imposed by the professiozzal standards
adopted by the TSBPA. See T'Ex. CONST. art. XVI, § 1 (oath of office); TEx. LoC. Gov'T CobaJ
/ANN. § 84.002 (Vernon 2045) (appointment of auditor by district judges); TEx. Occ. CODE A~~.
§ § 901.156 (Vernon 2004) (authorizing TSBP A to adopt standards of professional conduct}, 901.165
(authorizing TSBPA to adopt by reference standards for attest services developed by Axuexicarz
Institute of Certif ed Public Accountants or other nationally recognized accountancy organization}.
Because in our view such a construction is not unreason a.l;le and does not contradict the statute, it
is ozte to wlai.ch this office will defer.
-/27/2009 10:24 512-472-~,~::'8 OP?^',~u~i COPAt,~1TTEE PAGE 04/04
Th.e Honorable Rex Emersot Fage 3 (G11-0711;
S_ U l~
In lig1~= of, az~d in deference to, thw ~"Lxas State Board of
Public Accou?a ancy's view ofsection 90Z.U0~, Qccupations Code, a
county auditor who is a certified public accouzxtant may ethically
perforrn an, attc7~t ar~der section 775.082, Iicalth azzd Safety Code.
Very truly yours,
RECr $OTT
Attorney eneral of Texas
ANDitEW WEBER
First Assistant Attorney Genckal
JONATHAN K. FRELS
TJeputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
NANO' S. FULLER
Chaix, Opinion Cvznznittee
Cliaxiotte M..I~arper
Assistant A.ttozuey Gezzerai, i~pizziozz Committee