LGC Sec 133.103 (c) provides "the treasurer shall deposit 10 percent of the fees collected under this section in the general fund of the county or municipality for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the administration of justice in the county or municipality. The county or municipality shall prioritize the needs of the judicial officer who collected the fees when making expenditures under this subsection and use the money deposited to provide for those needs." (talking about the $25 time payment fee on court costs)

The Judge thinks this is his discretionary money to spend as and when he sees fit. The Commissioners see it as theirs to spend on his "prioritized needs".

Unpopular though it will make me with my colleague, I'm leaning toward the Commissioners interpretation; any other thoughts out there?

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney

Your interpretation comports most closely with the language of the statute. Moreover, placement in the general fund means no one county officer gets to spend it without the a-okay from the commissioners court. How that comes about is, as you already have astutely concluded, a function of the statutorily-required prioritization process. How the judge spends the money also must relate to the court's business; otherwise, there's a colorable argument that the fee would run afoul of art. 1, sec. 13 (open courts) as applied.

While I appreciate the accolades of my fellow TDCAA types, the jurist in question never even acknowledged that I was honored; I am the incompetent idiot in the corner who gets in his way. Makes me very careful when I have to "choose sides" in situations like this.

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney