Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1981 )

.
, -
The Attorney General of Texas
November 10, 1981
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
Honorable Evans N. Wentz Opinion No. Mw-389
P. 0. Box 12546 Executive Director
Austin, TX. 76711 State Commission for the Blind Re: Legality of rider to
5121475-2501 314 West 11th Street appropriation for State
Telex 9101674.1367
Austin, Texas 78711 Commission for the Blind
Telecopier 51214750266
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 for the Blind.
Acts 1981. 67th Leg., ch. 875. at 3553. The rider provides In
4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 pertinent part:
El Pas6. TX. 79605
9151533.3464 It is the intent of the Legislature that out
of funds appropriated above in item 5.a.
12M Dallas Ave., Suite 202
Vocational Rehabilitation an amount not to exceed
Hous,``, TX. 77002 $277,000 each fiscal year shall be expended for
71316500365 entering into a contract with the Texas Lions
League or a similar organization to provide
rehabilitative services to blind adults at the
606 Broadway, Suite 312
TlZXX3 Lions Camp for Crippled Children at
Lubbock, TX. 76401
6061747.5236 Kerrville or a similar facility located outside
Austin.
4306 N. Tenth. Suite B
You suggest that this rider is violative of article III, section 35 of
McAllen. TX. 76501
5121662-4547
the Texas Constitution, which the Texas Supreme Court has long
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
It is well established that a rider to a general appropriations
act is valid if its only effect is to “detail, limit, or restrict the
An Equal Opportunity1 use of the funds... therein appropriated.” Attorney General Opinion
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 law.
In our opinion, the rider at Issue here serves only to “detail,
limit, or restrict the use of the funds” already appropriated. In
p. 1322
,~
- 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 the
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.
It is the Intent of the Legislature that the
building house the central administrative offices
of both the Texas Department of Human Resources
and the Texas Youth Council. Further, it is the
intent of the Legislature that the building be
constructed on State land currently owned by the
Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation. The Board of Mental Health and
Mental Retardation is hereby authorized and
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
north by 51st Street, on the east by Guadalupe
Street and having the southern tip of the tract at
the intersection of Guadalupe and West Guadalupe
Streets, together with all records held by it
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:
directs and qualifies the use of funds
appropriated elsewhere.... It prohibits the use
of certain categories of funds for construction of
this building, and it effectively directs the use
of funds appropriated in other portions of the
Act.
Likewise, the rider to the appropriation for the State Commission for
the Blind constitutes a limitation on the expenditure of funds
appropriated in item 5.a. In addition, by requiring the commission to
enter the contract, the rider “effectively directs the use of funds.”
As we have noted, a rider is invalid if it attempts to repeal.
modify or-amend an existing law. See. e.g., Attorney General Opinion
MW-104 (1979). Section 91.052 of the Human Resources Code provides in
pertinent part:
,‘: .
Mr. Evans N. Wentz - Page 3 mw-389)
(a) The commission [for the Blind] shall conduct
a program to provide vocational
rehabilitation services to eligible blind
disabled individuals.
(b) To achieve the purposes of the program, the
commission may:
(1) cooperate with other public and private
agencies in studying the problems involved In
providing vocational rehabilitation and in
establishing. developing, and providing
necessary or desirable facilities and
SCKViCeS....
The statute places the decision to “cooperate with other public and
private agencies” within the commission’s discretion. The rider
qualifies, but does not remove, chat discretion. The commission
remains at liberty to determine the amount of the contract, up to
$277,000; it retains a choice of parties with whom to contract; and it
retains a choice of facilities. In our opinion, the rider is
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 of article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution.
SUMMARY
A rider to the appropriation for the State
Commission for the Blind is not violative of
article III, section 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