Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )


Menu:
  •                                 The Attorney General of Texas
    Novtmber 7. 1985
    JIM MATTOX
    Attorney General
    ,,,wn&s&Buildln~
    Mr. Vernon H. ArreL:L                        Opinion No. m-376
    Commissioner
    Audi”. TX. 7071% 2548           Texas Rehabilitatim    Coamlssion            Re:    Whether    article     6252-llc,
    5121475.2501                    118 E. Riverside Dr:lve                      V.T.C.S.,  applies to psychologists
    T*lrx 0101874.1357
    Austin. Texas     787134                     who provide dlagnostlc     and restora-
    talecopler 512J4750256
    tion services    directly   to clients
    of    the     Texas     Rehabilitation
    714 Jackson. Sulle 700                                                       Commlssloa
    Dallas. TX. 75202-4506
    2w742as44
    Dear Mr. Arrell:
    4824 Alberta Ave.. SUitC (80          You state      t’hat the Texas Rehabilitation        Commission provides
    El Pnso, TX. 799052793          diagnostic     and re``toration semices    to clients   as required by federal
    915/533.34S4                    law and regulation.,       Among the services    to be provided are psycholo- -.
    gical services.       I’he commission has arranged with licensed      psycholo-
    ,I Texas, suite 700
    gists  to provide such services       directly    to the client   at commi5sioa
    nouston, TX. 77002-3111        expense.     See Texas Rehabilitation      Commission. Psychological     Evalua-
    7lY223aSS                      tions 6 Counseling 7. Maximum Affordable            Payment Schedule,   (revised
    August 1, 1984) (fees for counseling           performed directly   by licensed
    psychologist).
    806 Broadway, Suite 312
    Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479
    8C6747.5238                          You ask thl? following    question   about     contracting               licensed
    psychologists to provide diagnostic   and restoration     services             for your
    clients:
    4309 N. Tenth. Suits 6
    McAll.n. TX. 78501-1685
    512lS82.4547
    Do    the    provision5      of    article       6252-11~.
    V.T.C.S<. I, ‘Use of Private       Consultants      by State
    Agencies I)’ apply to psychological           services    that
    200 M&I Plaza. Suite 4W                    are prov!;ded directly     to clients   of the commission
    San Antonlo, TX. 782052797
    for diagnostic    and restoration     services?
    51212254191
    Article     625:.-,llc.   V.T.C.S.,     governs the selection           and use of
    An Equal OppOftUnitYl          private   consultants        by state agencies.         V.T.C.S.     art. 6252-11~.   53.
    Alflrmativs Action Employer    It requires       the agency to publish             notice     in the Texas Register
    inviting    offers    for consulting      services;      after    the agency contracts
    vith    a private      consultant     it must publish           information     about the
    contract    in the Texas Register.              
    Id. 554. 6.
          Reports    and other
    materials     developed by the cousultant            must be filed        vlth the Texas
    State Library and, if requested,           vith the Legislative          Budget Eoard and
    the Governor’s Bud:get and Planning Office.                
    Id. - 55.
    p. 1717
    Mr. Vernon Il. Arrcll     - pagi, 2   (JM-376) *
    Article 6252-11~. V.¶‘.C.S.,        vas enacted in 1977 and amended in
    1979.   Acts 1977, 65th Le&,     ch.       454 at 1185; Acts 1979. 66th Leg.,
    ch. 773, art.  98, at 1957.    The       1979 amendmentm were enacted aa part
    of Eouae Bill No. 1673, th’c State        Purchasing end General Services Act.
    Acta 1979, 66th Leg.,   ch. 773 et        1908.  The caption of Rouse Bill No.
    1673 reads aa follows:
    &I Act     rclat$n:$  to  creation  of    the State
    Purcheaing    and Eeneral  Services Commission and
    abolition  of rho State Board of Control.
    
    Id. The caption
        does not mention the ameudments to article      6252-11~.
    n.C.S.;.    or the      employwut     of consultants  by state agencies.      The
    State Purchasing       and Geneml Services Comisaion       he8 no duties under
    article   6252-11~.     V.T.C.S,;;  the purchase of consulting   services  under
    that statute     is     express1.y excepted    from the State Purchasing      and
    General Services       Act.   V.Y.C.S. art. 601b, 53.01(b)(3).
    Article   III.    section   35 of the Texas ConatltutZou   provides   that
    [n]o bill,     (except   general   epproprlatLon    bills,
    which    may eml race     the    various   subjects      and
    accounts,   for md on accouot of which moueys are
    appropriated)    5'2511 contain more than one subject,
    which shall be expressed in its title.         But if any
    subject   shall he: embraced in aa act, vhich shall
    not be expressoil lo the title,        such act shall be
    void only as to so much thereof,         as shall not be
    so expressed.
    The purpose of this secttoo  is to give notice to the legislature    and
    the people of the subject matter of the proposed law, and thereby to
    prevent passage of a law upon one subject under guise of a title which
    expresses   another.   C. kaymen Construction    Company v.     American
    Indemnity Company, 471T%.2d     564 (Tex. 1971); Gulf Insurance Compaq
    v. James, 
    185 S.W.2d 966
    (,Tex. 1945).
    The cawion       of Eome Bill No. 1673 does not nive notice of the
    provisions      amending article   6252-llc, V.T.C.S.    Se;, e.g., C. Hayman
    Constructioa      Company Y. rkmericaa Indemnity Company, 7          Attorney
    General Opinion VW-225 (:?157).       House Bill No. 1673 there ore violates
    article    III.    section   35 of the Texas Constitution.    and it is void
    insofar as it attempts to amend article         6252-11~. V.T.C.S.  Arnold v.
    Leonard, 
    273 S.W. 799
    (Tsex. 1925).
    Legislative  history   enables us to determine vhy the caption of
    House Bill No. 1673 is deiective.       The bill as introduced had the same
    caption aa the enacted bill.         It did not include the amendments to
    article    6252-11~. V.T.C,.S.,  when introduced   or vhen approved by the
    p. 1718
    Mr. Vernon H. Arrell       - Page 3    (a-376)
    Eouse.     A Senate floor    amendment iocluded   the amendments to article
    6252-11~. V.T.C.S.,      in Eoua`` Bill No. 1673.    Bill File for 8.1). No.
    1673, 66th Leg. 1979, Legirilatlve       Reference Library.     The title    of
    Rouse Bill No. 1673 wes not rewritten           to encompess the edditioael
    material.     The House adopted the Senate amendments snd Eouae Bill No.
    1673
    __._   carrled
    ---````   the
    .``~ same
    ``     tith  when finally    enacted  aa when it vas
    introduced.     See generally Gulf Insurance Cbmpany V. James. 
    185 S.W.2d 966
    (Tex. 1945): Attorney G18 S.W.2d 585 
    (Tex. 1929); In re
    Johnson, 554xW.2d      775 (TEL, Clv. App. - Corpus Christ1 1977),x
    ref’d n.r,e.,   per curlam. Sli!l S.W.2d 88 (Tex. 1978); Attorney Genx
    Opinion hW-156 (1980).
    Article   6252-llc,   V.T.C.S.,     governs    the   use of consultants       and
    consulting    services    by state     agencies.      ha    enacted In 1977,        the
    statute Included the following        definitions:
    Section    1.   In this   Act:
    (1) ‘Consultiu8   service’ maana the practice of
    studying an exist.l.ag or a proposed operation    or
    project of an agency and advising the agency with
    regard to the ope::ation or project.
    co     ‘Private     c~oasultant’ mrans an entity       that
    performs     coosulti:1S services.
    Acts 1977. 65th Leg.,         ch. 454 at 1185.         Attorney General Opinion
    R-1173 (1978) considered v!wther an outside              audit of local       entities
    receiving      federal   grant    funds van. subject        to article       6252-11~.
    V.T.C.S.,     eod in addreaaloS the question,        discussed     the scope of the
    above definitions.        After reviewing legislative         history,    the opinion
    coocluded     that   the definition     of “coosulting      services”    referred      to
    management or program corwlting,              that is,      studies    of an agency
    designed to evaluate its programs aod procedures and to recommend more
    efficient     methods of perfc’rming its duties.           A “private      consultant”
    within    article   6252-llc,   V .T.C.S.,  did oot include a persoo retained
    by the agency to help car:?, out its usual duties.                  Attorney General
    Opinioa H-1173.        The oplnic~n concluded that the statute did not apply
    to a private accountaot hired by the Department of Commuaity Affairs
    to audit federal grants made to local entities.
    On the basis of Attorney General Opinion R-1173 and the language
    of  article  6252-11~ as ori:ginally  enacted,   we conclude it does aot
    apply to the contracts  in t,uestion.  Psychologists  under contract with
    p. 1719
    Hr. Vera00 PI. Arm11 - Page 4             W-376)
    the Texas Rehabilitation         Conmdaaion to provide  service6           directly    to
    COs,,,,i66iOt, Client6 a=6      Dot “Wl.WLS~6~ent
    COUEUltaDtE.”             The9   do   not
    rtudy
    an   uirting  or a proposed Operation or project                Of
    an agency   and (advicle] the 6geocy vith regard                to
    the operation or project.
    Act6    1977. 65th Leg.,      ch. 454 at 1185.       Th69 instead   6upply the
    dlaguoetic    and reetoration    tervices   which the coemi66ion ha6 a legal
    duty to provldc      it6 CliEntI,.     The Rehabilitation   Commlasioa 16 not
    subject     to article     6252-11~.    V.T.C.S.,   when It    contract6   vith
    p6ychOlogfEtE t0 provide diagnostic          and rEstOratiOn SetviCe     t0 it6
    CliEUt6.
    The title       of ‘Rouse Bill         No. 1673 of the
    Sixty-sixth     Legi6:tature      doe6 not give notice          of
    the bill’6     provlel~ws      amndlng article         6252-11``
    V.T.C.S.     The title    fail6 to meet the requirements
    of article    III, 6cction 35, of the Texa6 Constitu-
    tion and House Bill No. 1673 is void insofar                as it
    atteupte     to    amend article         6252-11~.      V.T.C.S.
    Article    6252-11~. V.T.C.S.,        as originally       enacted
    by the Sixty-fifth      Legislature       in 1977. remains in
    effect.      The 1977 version         of article       6252-11~.
    V.T.C.S..     doe6 nc’t apply to the Texas Rehabilf-
    tation      CO,‘6biSSiC’uo.’
    6     contract6     with      licensed
    psychologists      to provide services        directly     to the
    Cd6SiOl3’6       CliClitS.
    J
    Very truly   your
    A
    JIM        UATTOX
    Attorney    General of Texas
    MARYKELLER
    Executive AssiEtaut        Attorney     General
    ROBBRTCRAP
    Special Assistant        Attorney     G,eneral
    RICR GILPIN
    Chairman, Opinion Covmlttec!
    p. 1720
    ,   Mr.   Vernon   tl.   Arr611   - Page !i   (m-376)
    Prepared by Suean L. Garrison
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITl'RE
    Rick Gilpin. Chairman
    Colin Carl
    Susan GardEon
    Tony Guillory
    Jim Woelllnger
    Jennifer Riggs
    Nancy Sutton
    Sarah Woelk
    p. 1721
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JM-376

Judges: Jim Mattox

Filed Date: 7/2/1985

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017