-
Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion No. WW-660 Commissioner of Education Texas Education Agency Re: Whether the policy 201 East 11th Street followed by the Austin, Texas Texas Education Agency and the method employed in filing expense claims where a group return is involved is In ac- cordance with the leg- islative intent set out in the current General Dear Dr. Edgar: Appropriation Act. You have requested our opinion regarding a question predicated upon the following facts which we quote from your letter: "The Texas Education Agency requires personnel to travel to- gether in the same vehicle when the performance of the official duties permit without injuring the efficiency of the organization and when it is more economical to the state, and to require a group to return to their official station on week-ends and/or daily when the co& of transportation is less than the per diem cost of maintaining the en- tire group in the field. See,:H.B. 133, Acts 55th Legislature, R.S. (Ap- propriation Bill) General Provisions Section 31g, at pg. 1155. "The Division of School Audits has consistently followed this policy. However, the Comptroller of Public Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 2 (W-660) Accounts is refusing to pay'the April expense account for one of our field auditors, said expense account having been submitted in accordance with the above stated policy. The Comptroller contends that the definition of 'cheaper' as shown in Sec.
jig, supra, re- fers to one employee, and that we cannot group employees. . . .' The question you pose Is as follows? II whether the policy followed by-this agency and the method employed in filing expense claims where a group return la in- volved Is in acoordance with the legislative Intent set out In the current General Appropriation Act." In determining the intent of the Leglslature with regard to travel expense and per diem allowance for State employees we must look to the wording of House Bill No. 133, Acts of the 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Appropriation Act. Section 29(e) of Article VI of the General Provisions of the Appropriation Act provides that the "heads of agencies shall plan the travel of all em- ployees under their aut$ority so as to achieve maximum economy and efficiency. Section 30(a) of Article VI of the General Pro- xisions of the Appropriation Act provides that where . . . two or more employees travel in a single private conveyance, only one shall receive a transporatlon allow- ance, but this provision shall not preclude each traveler from receiving a per diem allowance ; thus further showing a legislative intent toward economy by allowing only one em- ployee a transportation allowance where a group travels to- gether, while allowing all of the employees a per diem allow- ante. Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 3 (WW-660) Keeping the foregoing Btatemetitein mind, let UB now consider the following portion of Section 31 (g) of Article VI of the AppropriationAct: "Except when it is cheaper, a traveling State employee may return to his headquartersdaily or on the week-end rather than etay out at State's expense; cheaper -- as It applies to daily round trips shall be determinedby aomputing the mlle- age and per diem on a ~dallybaels and the entire mileage and per diem on any one day shall not exceed the per diem allowance of $8.00." Thus, in our opinion, there can be no doubt that the Legislatureintended, and has expressed lta intent, ````se;gn;cm~a.:``;ff++$v3yahall be the primary consldera- and reimbursementfor the travel of State employees in the performanaeof their duties. The portion of Seation 31(g) quoted above makes it alear that an employee traveling alone may make daily round trlpa only when the round trip mileage allowance and per diem does not exceed his m&xlmum per diem allowance of $8.00. Let us now aonaider the situation where two or more State employees are traveling together by private conveyance. As we have pointed out above, group travel of this nature was intended by the Legislature;only one of the group shall re- ceive a travel allowance and all may received per diem. The maximum per diem would be $8.00 times the number of employees. If the mileage allowanae for a dally round trip, plue what- ever the per diem for the group would be, does not exceed $8.00 times the number of employees In the group, it would not be as eaonomiaalfor the group to stay out at State's expense as it would be to return to headquarters. If a round trip is not made, the obvious result in such a situation is a greater expenditureof State funds. This would not be in keeping with the express Intent of the Legislatureto effectuate a poliay of eaonomy and efficiency with regard to the travel of State employees. Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 4 (WW-660) Therefore, in our opinion, considering the Legislature's express authority for group travel in Section 30(a), the Legislature Intended that such group travel be accomplished with ,economyand effi- ciency and that group travel with regard to daily round trips be governed by the provision of Section 31(g) quoted above. That is to say, that even though the wording of this provision governing dally round trips speaks of 'employee" in the singular, in our opinion the Legislature Intended that 'employee" ln- elude employees traveling in a group and that the 8.00 per diem referred to,in Section 31(g) means 8.00 per diem per member of the group. We therefore answer your question by saying that the policy followed by the Texas Education Agency and the method employed in filing expense claims where a group return is involved is In accord with the legis- lative Intent set out In the current General Appropria- tion Act. SUMMARY The Intent of the Legislature with regard to travel of State employees is that it be accom- plished with economy and efficiency. This Intent applies`` to an employee traveling,alone as well as emnloyeea traveling in groups. Therefore, Section 31(g), H. B. 133, Acts of 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, p. 1155, whiah is the au- thorization for daily round trips, though worded in&he singular applies to group travel. The policy followed by the Texas Edu- cation Agency where a group return Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 5 (ww-660) 1s involved is in accord with the intent of the Legislature. Very truly youra, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas WOS:rm APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE L. P. Lollar,~Chairman Marvin F. Sentell Charles D. Cabaniss Paul W. Floyd, Jr. Jack Goodman REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. V. Geppert
Document Info
Docket Number: WW-660
Judges: Will Wilson
Filed Date: 7/2/1959
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/18/2017