Case Information
*1 i I
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
0LI.N.D c. MANN ..r- .**.=a
Uuoh 4, 1939 Honorable Howard Bartcog
Coamlttee on state Mralrm
Bouae of Repr*mntetlrrr
Aurtln, Texa8
Dear Sin
UtfOi@ 16, SWiiOII 30, Or the COtMtftUtiOiI Or.TeX8s pro- rider in part t *The duration of all otfioee not fixed by this Con- rtltutlon rhall no~er eroesd tro year8 ’ * *.”
The Texan Supreme Court her repeatedly held that thio pro- vision forbida Legirlaturr to oreato the term of any offfoe for more than two yearr. The rOBIOtI for this prO+h%O13 iI W43ii f#tated the Suprose Court ln the,oase oi Klgbrough va. Barwtt (1900) 95 Tex. 301, 85 S,I, 120, in the opinion by Brown, I., et pa@ 121: *2 morablo Xouard Xartrog, Msroh 4, 19S9, Pago 2
*The oomoatlon whioh frmsd our Coastitu- o??~oors who mm tion nalrd tb priaolpal to disohargs ths ?uaotioar ot~gorornaeat ior 8tste aad oouatiss end some subdivisions of oountlom, end to l aoh aemsd otrlor iron Oorrr- nor to ooastrblr, exorpt notary publlo, ilxsd a tam ior whloh it should bs hold. The terns rsngod from 81x years for ths l ppsllats oourts and railroad oomalssionsrs down to two years ror alwst rrsry other 0rri0e. It is menirs8t that the ooavontlen did not drslra or Intend that publio servants OS this stats should hold their O??lo@r for great lragth O? time, but it we8 the polloy that they should return to the power uador rhioh they rsosivsd their au- thority tar its rrnswsl at rhort intervals; aad having appllod this rule to all thr o??lOss newd by them, revs the one, it plaosd a liti- tatloa u on thr aotlon o? thr Lsglslaturr ss to suoh o??fo6s as It tight orsets.m
Statutes and ordlaaaoes whloh ham attempted to oreatr of- fioes for a tsmloagar then two years bar0 bean drolarsd uaooastltu- tione1. Sen Aatonlo Iadepsodsnt Sohool Distriot vs. State, (ct. Civ. of error refused) 173 8.W. 525; OOmm1sslonor8* Court o? App:, writ Llmsst s Oouaty, et sl. 18~ Osrrstt st al. (TPx. Comm. hpp.i 19221 236 s. 8? 970 (roversod 830 S.W. lOlO!.
As will hsrsiaefter bs shown, the term "o??iooW as uwd la Xrtlole 16, Sootion 30, of Constitution does not apply to all po- sltloas or emplomsat of ths stats or its 8ubdlvl8lon8, but only to oertaln olassrs a? ponltlons. Thn Constitution doss aot attempt to ths geaerlo terms a0fri00* or ~orriorrs~. Xeay goaoral dsrl- define nitions can be louad in the text book8 ead oases, bus tha applloat tloa or thsss derinltlons to spsol?io bordorllas oases is xtmmsly ooniusion exists in the Texas oases in ap- Considerable diffloult. plying the dsflnitioas to apsoltio lnstenoss in distlagulshiag ba- twesn *o?rlosrsW and other olassifloation8.
Ths most iavorsd doiiaitioa Of the term 'otilos", nhioh has men quoted with aFprova1 many times by Texas oourts, is the ens given ay Ysoheia In his work on Pub110 Offlosrs, as tollous: *
*A publio o??ios is the right, authority end duty oreatsd aad oontsrrab by law, by whioh, for a given period, rlther fixed by law or enduring at the pleasuro of ths orsating power, aa lndi- vidual Ii lovested with some portion o? the SOY- rrslga iuaotioas o? goveramsat, to be exeroiasd by him for the benefit o? ths publlo* *. The most imwrtent ohareotsristio whloh d1stSnRuiehss *3 5 s .
.
Honorable Boward Hartsog, llaroh 4, 1909, %gs 8
the oreatloa 8ad ooniorrlng of 8n offloe involves a delog8.tioa the bdlvidual 0s 80~ 0s the mt- l r*ign runotloas 0s gorermwnt, to be sx*rolsod by him for the benefit a? the pUbllO; that SOW por- 0s ths oouatry, either tion 0s the sovereignty log- e1eoutlve, or JudioI81, sttaohro for iSl8tiV0, tlsm being, to be l xerolsed for th.8 publio boiwlt. Un)oss the powers oonirrred rb of this nature, the individual 18 not a publio offloer.' As a guide for the app1io8tioa of this de?iaitloa, 18t us examine speo~fIo inat8noes wherein the Texas courts have dlstla- @shed between an otfiobr end a non-otfioer, and the orlterla UpOn which they have based euoh diatlaotions. PolIoemen were held to br Wot?loersR wlthia the meaning of Artiole 16, SeotIon 30, of the Coa- stltutlon in McDonald, et al. ve. City 0s D8118s, et al. (D8il88 ct. of 01~. App 1934) 69 S.W. (2d) 175, 8fritn~d by Suprome Court in 98 S.W. (2df 167 reversed on other grounds In 10s S.W. (26) 725 and 107 S.W. (2df 987. The Court o? Civil Appeals pointsd out that [8] polioem8n W88 deflned 88 8 “Pea00 OtfioeP Artiol. 36 of th. Code of Crlmla81 Prooedura, 1928, Polioemen aad SIremen bare beon regarded es ottloers. Callaghaa, Yayor vs. Mo0oua (Ct. 0s civ. App. 19061, 90 8.w. 319, writ or error rerusd. In olty or rhoton VS. Albers, 32 Tex. Cir, App. 70, 73 9.1, lOS4, it *as held that under tha Qlvll Ssrvioo p~ovlsioas o? the Houston Oh8Pter, polioemso hold or?Qe for two years on good behavior, but that baaawe of Artiole 16, Seotlon 30, 0s the Coa8titutioD, they oeased to be 0rri00ri u0 jure two years from their appointment, unless reappointed.
In Ellis vs. Holoombr, 69 S.W. (2d) 449, writ of error ro- fused, the oourt deolared the asuperinteDdoat of the identlti- oation bureau of the pollee dspartment of the oity + * 18 not an orfloer 0s the olty, but [8] highly qualified oxpert employee norkin& in the poUor depertmeDt Of the o%tr.* On thr other hand, a rarrent officer in the 08me pol%oe department ~88 held to bo 8II “oftloer” by the Texas Supremb Court In Holoombe vs. Umte, 102 S.W. (2d) X041, ii suoh otfioe had evtw been legally oroated. ID this oasr It mar held that the 0rri00 0s warrant ofrioer had not been oreatsd by the oharter for reason that it did not epeoify the aumbar of suoh ‘Aa ordinaD0~ attempting to oreate aa 0tri0e8. The oourt said: lndeflnite number o? o?fiOeS without [8] maximum limitation Is void.’ A olty olerk has been held to br 8a offloer, State ex r81. Bovee v8. Catlin, 04 Tax. 48, 19 S.X. 302. A oity Superintendent of sohools Is an ottIoer. KImbrough vs. Barnett,(Tex. Se Ct. 19001, 93 Tex. 301, 55 S.W. 120; but an aaelsteat County Sohool Superintea- dent was held not to be an otfloer, Reeper vs+ SteN8rt (Eastland Ct. Civ. App. 19331, 66 s.w. (2d) 812, writ 0s error refused. In this oaee the court said that since the Superintendent should at 8ll timea have the right to disohaqe his asaistent beoause he was reepoasible for his ants. auoh asalatant ehould not be oonsldered an offioer. Ior
H4aorabl8 Eow8rd X8rlisoi5, Yaroh 4, lOSO, F8ga 4
the s8a8 meson [8] deputy ubll0 mIgh8r was hold Lo bs 8~ mDffiser* in tlndlry vs. Callowey, P Da1148 ct. of Dir. App, 192s) 248 8.W. 681. In Pr~rrer 260 8.11. losl, the ~IE&BS~OD 0s AD- VS. u8hnk0, peals doolarod that the ohie? clerks of Comptrolhr end &or.- tary of State were offlosr8, fOT the r8eson that they perform their duties *by vlrtuo of authority of the Logirleturo ID the 08~8 ray that thblr ohlots p8rforA thea.’
‘Th8 Deputy Sherlr? 18 en o??iOsr knowa to the 18rS ’ .” Towns vn. Harris, 13 Tax. 507. Likerim a deputy oounty olerk la an 0rri04r. Dongas ~6~ Bsall, 41 &Vi. (i3d) bS1, writ of error re- bfembsrn of e sohool board are otfioers. Son Antonio Iads- fused. pendant Sohool Distriot vs. State, 193 S.W. 525, wit of error r8- fused, ea are wmbers of a board of road oomaiesIoners, CoauaisaIoa- are* Court of Llmsstone County vs. Gwrett, Tax. CoamI or Appeals, 1922, 236 S.W. 970. A deputy SUp@~V~SOr 8ppoLntrd by the Railroad Commlssloa was deolared to be an ottioer [8] oonferenoe opLaIon a? C. bi. Cui-aton, Attorney Oeneral, fOT the re8soa, la pert, that the statute used ths word WappolntW father than W@eaplOym. Spoolal OOUA- se1 employed by the Attorney General was held not to bs aD offiosr by the Suprem Court ID Terre11 vs. Sperkm, 104 Tar. 191, MS S.19. 519, for the reason that he was not required take the oath of of- tier aad “had no offioie1 reletIoaR to the ittoraep General. ti as- sistant oity attorney we8 held not to be an o??loer, Rail vs. Stat&, 59 Grim. Rep. 4S4, 129 S.iV. 630. In this 0888 the oourt drew [8] dls- tiaotlon betwea the drsIga8tIon of *888ist8ntm and Wdeputym, Imply- iag that doputl88 are 0rrI0ers but assIstants am not. IA th8 oam o? jibbertsoa vs. El110 County !Ct, of Of+. App.) S4 S.W. 1097, oourt held that a dlstrlot court stsnogrepher was not m~offiorr, 47411 though the L4glsl8tiare provided SOT the posltlon and prssorlbed that he take the oath of offior, After quoting Wohesi’s de?iDItiOD 0s [80] 0rri00, quoted above, the oourt held that the two year linita- tloa of Artlolo 18, Section 30, did not apply to [8] ooiwt steaogre- phar , aeylag: “we ooaoluds while the ~SitiOA 0s 4
4t4OOgr8ph4r, under the atetute in thl8 stat@, any be, In a sense, an otflor, and the tell thereof may ooatlnuo for period loagsr than two years, yet there Is no ruoh eov8rrIga fuao- tloa of government rmbraoad la the powers oonfsr- red.upon the lndlvldual pm?omIag its duties as brlags it within the msaalag Of the word 'OfflC4' es used in the motion of the COastItUtiOa ‘quoted.” Based upon the foregoing dealsions of the oourta, and et- telsptlng to apply ttm various orlterle aug-lsated by them, we oan safely cooolude that all persons who are 8lentad to their position8 are aof?loers’ within the mseniag of Art1018 16, SeotIoa 30, of the Coast:tutlon, and of those persons ,obteining their posltioas by ap- *5 Maroh 4, 1959, &gO 6 Ronorablr ROward tfWt&O~,
pointmWlt, 01&y tboM are ofiioorr w&o are authorIt,& br statute to pertorn govornme&al funotlonr ln their own right Involving 8op* exorolro OS dlsorrtlon. All others are not offloors, but mom OS- ployr*s.
We bslIe?e that the two year llmftatfon or tenura pro- sorlbed by ArtIolo 10, Sdotlon 30, of the Tours Constitution applier OtiT to woffioo#a an defined above, and -would not apply to ‘mere m- ploy8~ rlthin departments suoh as stenographerr, ,mto.*
Your third question reads:
“If au enp1oy.e uithln a department in Term Is not an otflorr would a merit system with eeour- ity oi tenure based upon competenoa be oonstltu- tIona1 tor more than two years?* It 18’our oplnlon that a oIvI1 ssrvioe statute providing for tenure of off100 on good behavior and efiloirnt rervioo would \ not violate the two year tenure provision of the Constitution ar ap- plied to Stute mplopsecl v&a are not Wotiloer6*. The oi.vil servioe provI8lom la many olty ohartsrs have been upheld as valid. Callag- han, klayor va. MoOown, 90 S.W. 919, writ of error rriueed; Rolooabo vs. Orate, Tex. S, Ct. 1937;102 S.?i. (26) 1041. skoreover, wbbre olvll #en100 ,provlsIom in olty oharterr have been applied to *of- iloo s* 8UOh a# polloaraen, the oourtr have *read into* the ait tsar- vie 0f ~provlaions the oonatitutional two year llaltation, 8o a8 not to invalidate the oivil servioa provisions. Callagbam, Uayor ~‘8. l6oOorn suprr; Oitf of Rourton v8. Albert, 73 9.K. W&i; ?% Tex. Jur. 365: *And thr provialon (Art. 16, Sso. 30) la not vlolstod oivll mr- vioo provlaionr In rtatute and munloIpa1 obarterr that offloors rhall hold their posltlona during rfiiolsnt sarvioe and good behavior; these nil1 be oonstrued In oonneotlon with Constitution to uiean positions rhall be held during good behavior for psrlod not l r oeedlng year@.* two
Question tour made:
*En view of the above, would a rtate oivil servio;e systsm for departmental employees b6 oon- stitutional?”
So far aa Article 16, SeotIon 301 ia oonoerneh, it is Our opinion that it would not be unoonstltutional. Fe xould, 0r ooulwe, be unable paer upon all other possible phase8 of suoh an aot with- *6 Honorable Eoward Xartso6, Yuoh 4, 1939, Pag8 8
out bivlm~ ot ltreli before ~8.
Tour8 very truly iiTTQRNSP OENSRAL OF TEXAS BY -n;“ti
Salter R. ltooh lisel rtant WRK:FO