Case Information
*1 :. ..:...:
Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard Opinion No. O-6705 of S.B. 3l7 eud H.B.
Rea Construction Bog 173 departmental appropriation bill en& higher. instltutlons of leern- ing appropriation bill, 49th Legislature, pl.oyPlent of husband aud wife. concerning the em-- Dear .Ikr. Shepparda
.::;I: the fol-
You request au opinion frolp th5.s Department in lowing letter: “1 shall thank you to exaadne Subsection 19 of
Section 2 OS Senate Bill Ho* Acts of the Begu- lar Session of the 49th Legislature knowa., as, the Departmental AppxopriatUn Bill en&adviiie this de- part~nt wlqther it 1s p ermissdle ,,SQ~ a hnsbmd and wiSe ‘.to ybr+ Sk the State’ oa ‘aid &S&or &i~tember 1 of fhla years
Tt is Surther prodded that the Sawgoing pro- restrlctlng emploolleent of both %usband and wfie shall not epply to any~persims who .wexe empleyed and recelv%ng .compensatlon i”rou the ‘State at any time durw t&e month of Jatmsry, l&l*,’ YChls ‘exception is not carried forwd in ‘the De-
.-::; ,::., partmeutal Qpropriation Mll .$Or the ensulng bfenn%um. ,.
“Wee have a fact sftuation ,as SoZlowsz A men aud MS tife haye been, workbwfor the Gtate. in diSSerent departments for a, long number of yeam. .%!helr..emplgy- mmt, has been aorttlmouer, They each desire to qontin- ue work Soti the State after Septexbti aadit 3.s. the desire of the departuer& heads to Isee $bum Sn the* present posItions, WIU it lmpossib e Sor both ,of these eople to ,contlnus ww9.c the departments In WhlCh % ey ore now employed on and after September of this pearl
“You -wU.l noblie that Subset&ton 28 OS SeotiOn 2 of the Act fixing the .appropriatlon Sor educational in- stitutlous for higher learning for the enSPing blenaima has to do with emtiloyment of husband aud wiSe for the various ~educatlonal institution&’ W22.l it fmke atly difference whethsr the husband or Wl.Se in either instance iw worklug for a: aepartmsnt or for au fnstitutfon *2 Hon. George H. Sheppard, page 2.
higher. ~1earnUg as far as Me or her employment Is concerned aft&-September 1 of this year?
'1 find no restriction against the employment oS husbaud and wife In the Appro riation Bill for t@e sup- port an8 maintenance of the e P eemosynary institutions for the ensuing blennlum. Would It be penaisslble on8 spouse to work for a State department and the other to work for the eleemosynary lnstltutlons?4~
.'For convenlapce sake we have nmbersd the paragraphs Litter, sttilng t&e respective qtiestlons propounded by you.
Su~s&tloq 19 of_Ssstlon 2 of Senate Bill 110~ 3l7, in- sofar as“pertln&t, Is as followsi
tit,~tbgiijibq:~lth $h&napPe of the depar&uent where'gudh spouse is e@.@yed, ,qnd if such reXationshSp employment does pot exScrt; ‘then sald’,sSSidaVlt shall so &ate and the head of’$he .&~~m&nt, ,and thi St&& Comptroker shall wt approve POP pa$m@S or issue wanants or checks for salarlw td ..6lther. the lzusbnd or wffe nowhere both said ~~bsha”&+~‘i@% atd~ empUred in the departments ~f&ps~f3$0 *jeet,~ however, to the f$.l.owI.ug provl-
‘khk prov&zloi&q Jmreln shek’a piy to department heads ~and’leempbercl of CelamtssiOns b ut not to the manager and laatr@ of W ~001~ Nate Paz%. We word * departme& 9 ‘as used herein ehr$L;mean theas departw3nts napled in %hIa Act and f&6 S&l Coars&vatIon Board and shall not agpl.y to &her a&w&x.of We State and the employee0 employ-~ ed ther,eby.*
Subseation 18 of the general of House BIU 173, Insof* as pertinent, ii3 as followsr
- wId is provided that none of the funds appropriated here-~ sh&lX be pa&d to a husband and wife both &f whom are employed by any of the several Institukons named herein. *
-2
Hone George H. Sheppard, page 30 We find no exceptions ta either of these respective pro- comparable t6 the one quoted by you from the current de-
partmental approprfation act.
The,se prohibitory are plain and unambiguous. It is our opinion that your questions should be answered, as iollows: - It will be impossible for both of these people--, husband and'Gife--to continue to work Sor'the departments ln whi& they are employed or any other cf the departments provided ln For 317. S8nat8Bill
The clear meaning of the respective riders 1s that husband and2;lfe may net both be employees of any of the State de- partment~s at the same time, and likewise they may not both be em- ployees of any ~of the higher educational. Institutions at the sums time, There is nothlng, however respeutlvely, forbidding their being emploped,
by a department 8nA an educational lustltutlon at the Sam8 time.
3. It would be permissible for one spouse to workas axi .empi.oyee for a Stat 8 department’ and the other tom work as an 'J@6ry 88 for ti eleemosyi3@ry institutlim, or en educational lm3tltU$L0nj as given ln our answer to question No. 2. , !m;~:,+&mer f.0 pnasMan ?& ls .&~$*&.~&+J&~~:iip(i@f.&&~
_.. ,...~ _..__ c:.,.: .+:‘“. tlon;. Subsection (II> of the general provisions contained @i Xas8 Bl.Il No. fixlug appropriations for educatlonti& instit%ltiOW3 of higher learning, expresdy. provides a ,
“The gene~ral. provisions mad8 ln this Act shall not apply to athletic br extremurel d8,pmtUIOX3tSt and as, to these ~exceptlons, the governing board shaU make such necessary rules and adjustments as may be deemed advisable. * I This exception would apply to the general provision (18) ooncernl.zg the employment of husband and wm. subS8CtiOp APFROVED JUL. 24, v8X.y tl’X&.youZ%i A!rToRNEy’GswBRAL OF S!BXiS /s/ Carlos C. AsiAey By /s/ O~le~Speer FIR@’ &SSISl!AMT ATTORNEY GEIWUL APPROVED: OPINION COlMCTpEE Ocle Speer, Assistant BYt BWB, CKJURMU?
OS-Miawb
..---v--