Case Information
, -
The Attorney General of Texas
November 10, 1981 MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building P. 0. Box 12546 5121475-2501 Austin, TX. 76711 Telecopier Telex 9101674.1367 [51214750266] Honorable Evans N. Wentz Austin, Texas 78711 State Commission 314 West 11th Street Executive Director for the Blind Opinion No. Mw-389 Re: appropriation Legality for for State
Dear Mr. Wentz: 1607 Main St.. Suite 1400 Dallas. TX. 75201
You have requested our opinion regarding the validity of a rider [21417426944] to the recent appropriation to the State Commission the Blind.
Acts 1981. 67th Leg., ch. 875. at 3553. The rider provides In 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 El Pas6. TX. 79605 It that out
9151533.3464 above item 5.a. 12M Dallas Ave., Suite 202 Hous,~~, TX. 77002 [71316500365] Vocational $277,000 entering League each into Rehabilitation fiscal similar a contract with year organization an amount not to exceed shall be expended the Texas Lions to provide rehabilitative to blind adults at 606 Broadway, Suite 312 TlZXX3 Lions Camp for Crippled Children at Lubbock, TX. 76401 Kerrville or a similar facility located outside 6061747.5236 Austin.
4306 N. Tenth. Suite B You suggest that this is violative 35 of McAllen. TX. 76501 which the Texas Supreme Court has long the Texas Constitution, 5121662-4547 construed to prohibit the enactment of general legislation within a general appropriations bill. See Moore v. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559. 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 561 (Tex. 1946). San Antonio, TX. 76205 [51212254191] is well established that a rider to a general appropriations is to “detail, limit, or restrict
act is valid its only effect therein appropriated.” use of funds... Attorney General Opinion An Equal Opportunity1 Affirmative Action Employer v-1253 (1951). See also Moore v. Sheppard, m; Linden v. Finley.
49 s.w. 578 (Tex. 1899); Attorney General Opinions MU-51 (1979); M-1199 (1972). A rider may not, however, repeal, modify or amend an existing general
In our opinion, the rider at Issue here serves only to “detail, limit, or restrict the use of funds” already appropriated.
p. 1322 *2 ,~ I Mr. Evans N. Wentr - Page 2 (Mw-389)
Attorney General Opinion MW-51. we considered the following provision of the 1979 General Appropriations Act:
(47) The Texas Department of Human Resources is hereby authorized and directed to construct a state office building, in cooperation with
State Board of Control, consisting of NTE 530.000 gross square feet (400,000 net square feet). NO General Revenue, Children’s Assistance, or Medical Assistance funds may be used for this purpose. is the Intent that the
building house the central administrative offices of both the Texas Department of Human Resources and the Texas Youth Council. Further, it of the Legislature that the building be
constructed on State land currently owned by the of Mental Health and Mental Texas Department Retardation. The Board of Mental Health
Mental Retardation is hereby authorized
directed to transfer to the State Board of Control record title to a certain triangular-shaped tract of land 29 acres, more or less, in the north part of the City of Austin, bounded on the west by West Guadalupe Street and North Lamar Boulevard, on the on the east by Guadalupe north by 51st Street, Street and having the southern tip of the tract at intersection of Guadalupe and West Guadalupe together with all records held by it Streets, concerning this tract.
Relying on the standard affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 599 (Tex. 1975). we said that the language of the rider: use of funds
directs qualifies appropriated elsewhere.... It prohibits the use of certain categories of funds for construction of this building, and it effectively directs the use funds appropriated in other portions of Act.
Likewise, the rider the State Commission constitutes limitation on the expenditure in item 5.a. In addition, by requiring the commission enter the rider “effectively directs the use of funds.”
As we have noted, a rider invalid it attempts to repeal. modify or-amend an existing See. e.g., Attorney General Opinion MW-104 (1979). Section 91.052 of the Human Resources Code provides *3 ,‘:
Mr. Evans N. Wentz - Page 3 mw-389)
(a) The commission [for the Blind] shall conduct program to provide vocational
rehabilitation eligible blind disabled individuals.
(b) To achieve the purposes of the program,
commission may:
(1) cooperate with other public and private agencies in studying the problems involved providing vocational rehabilitation and establishing. developing, providing necessary desirable facilities SCKViCeS....
The statute places the decision to “cooperate with other public private agencies” within commission’s discretion. The qualifies, but does not remove, chat discretion. The commission remains at liberty to determine the amount of up to $277,000; it retains a choice of parties with whom to contract; and it retains a choice facilities. In our opinion,
virtually declaratory of existing law and does not repeal, modify or amend section 91.052 or any other statute. We conclude that the rider is not violative III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution.
SUMMARY A rider the State is not violative article 35 of the Texas Constitution.
=g MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
RICHARD E. GRAY III
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED :
OPINION COMMITTEE
Susan 1.. Garrison, Chairman
Rick Gilpin