Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1959 )


Menu:
  • 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