Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1959 )

. . .I
THEA~oRNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
AUSTIN ~I.TExAR
September 25, 1959
Dr. L. R. Noyes, Executive Director
Texas Animal Health Commission
Room 1021, New State Office Building
Austin, Texas
Opinion No. w-708
Re: Whether H.B. No. 4, third
called session, 56th Leg.,
permits the Texas Animal
Health Commission to in-
crease maximum salaries
Dear Dr. Noyes: and related questions.
Your request for an opinion reads in part as follows:
"The Animal Disease Eradication Division,
United States Department of Agriculture, will
not recognize work done under Types I. or II.
Brucellosis programs, unless such blood test-
ing and/or vaccinations are performed by ac-
credited veterinarians or laymen regularly
employed by the Texas Animal Health Commission.
"In the event that Counties elect to parti-
aipate in the Brucellosis programs and contribute
funds, is our assumption correct that such funds
shall be deposited with the State Treasurer to
the credit of the Texas Animal Health Commission,
to be used in the specified Counties?
"Assuming that Counties, or individuals,
desire to participate in the brucellosis program
by the contribution of funds, can such funds be
used to increase the maximum salaries provided in
the State Departmental Appropriation Bill?
"The appropriation allotted this Department
for the biennium 1960-61 provides salaries for
veterinary livestock market inspectors not to
exceed $8.00 per day.
Dr. L. R. Noyes, page 2 (w-708 )
"It is obvious that capable representatives
cannot be employed at this pay scale, and this
Department is wondering if'the amount of $8.00
may be supplemented by contributions in an amount
to adequately compensate representatives for the
services performed at these livestocl,auction
markets. The contributions would be maae by the
livestock market operators on the first day of
each month, payable to the State Treasurer.
"It would, of course, be necessary that the
contributions be kept in separate accounts for
each livestock market, since the volume of live-
stock handled at the various markets varies
greatly, and the representatives of this Depart-
ment would be paid accordingly.
"In the event that salaries may be supple-
mented, as stated above, will it be permissible
for the veterinarian selected to also accept fees
for tests, vaccinations, etc., required under
provisions of the livestock auction market bill
in addition to his supplemented salary?
"At the present time there are twelve live-
stock markets in Texas specifically approved by
this Commission and the Animal Disease Eradica-
tion Division for receiving cattle, in interstate
commerce, in compliance with Federal brucellosis
regulations.
?he Animal Disease Eradication Division has
informed this Department that unless State funds
are available to assume state-paid supervision of
these markets their approval to receive cattle in
interstate commerce will be withdrawn effective
at the close of August.
"Since it will be impossible, under the
appropriation made available to this Department,
to maintain supervision at any livestock markets,
may the Commission assume supervision of these
approved markets which contribute funds, supple-
menting our appropriation, and exclude other live-
stock markets within the S,tatethat may desire
approval for handling cattle in interstate com-
merce but that do not offer to contribute funds
to supplement our appropriation for this work?"
or. L. R. Noyes, Page 3 (``-708)
House Bill 187, Acts of the 56th Legislature, 1959,
Chapter 192, page 430, changes the name of the Livestock Sani-
tary Commission of Texas to the Texas Animal Health Commission
and provides that hereafter all or any references thereto or
laws relating to the Livestock Sanitary Commission shall apply
to the Texas Animal Health Commission, and all appropriations
and benefits should be available to and apply to the Texas Ani-
mal Health Commission.
House Bill 31, Acts of the 56th Legislature, 1959,
Regular Session, Chapter 188, page 418, sets up a Bovine Bru-
cellosie Control Program and authorizes the designation of
brucellosis control areas upon petition of seventy-five per
cent of the cattle owners in the area owning at least fifty-
one per cent of the cattle within that area.
Subdivision 7 authorizes two types of areas stating:
"(7) Two (2) types of brucellosis control
areas may be established. These types are:
"I. An area in which no testing shall be re-
quired but in which all female calves shall be re-
quired to be officially vaccinated within ages fixed
by regulation of the Texas Livestock Sanitary Com-
mission and incompliance with the regulations of
such Commission relating to vaccination,
"II. An area inwhich such test, vaccinations,
identifying practices, quarantines, disposition of
infected animals and other practices as provided by
regulations of the Texas Livestock Sanitary Commis-
sion shall be followed.
"The petition of the cattle owners constituting
the basis for the proclamation establishing the
brucellosis control area shall state which type,
'1' or 'II,' control area is desired in the af-
fected area and the.proclasnationestablishing the
control area shall designate which type, '1' or
'II,' is established. No type control shall be
established unless that type has been properly
requested."
Subdivision 15 authorizes the 'TexasAnimal Health Com-
mission to employ "veterinarians, inspectors, stenographers
and necessary clerical help and such other persons it may deem
necessary for the performance of any duty under this Section."
We are unable to find any provision in House Bill 31
Dr. L. R. Noyes, page 4 (WW-708)
or in any other general law applicable to the Texas Animal
Health Commission which authorizes the Texas Animal Health
Commission to accept donations.
House Bill 4, Acts of the 56th Legislature, Third
Called Session, 1959, (the General Appropriation Act) con-
tains the following appropriation to the Texas Animal Health
Commission:
"Out of General Revenue Fund:
"For Salaries and Wages:
,r
. . .
3. Director, Contagious and
Infectious Disease 7,500 7,500
4. Director, Inspections
and Regulations 6,000 6,000
5. Accounting Clerk I 3,300 3,300
6. Stock Clerk I 2,712 2,712
7. Secretary III 3,384 3.384
Stenographer IV 3,192 3,192
1o
;: %S;;;rapher II, NTE
12,048 12,048
. Seasonal and Part-time
Help 3,000 3,000
"Field Program
;l; Veterinarian 7,000 7,000
Veterinarians, NTE $6,000 24,000 24,000
13: Livestock Inspector II,
NTE $3,900 7,800 7,800
14. Livestock Inspector I,
NTE $3,300 141,900 141,900
15. Livestock Handler, NTE
$8 per day 12,ooo 12,000
"Subtotal, Salaries
and Wages $ 248,836 248,836
"For Other Expense
16. Travel Expense 113,580 113,580
17. Diagnostic services, in-
cluding bacteriological,
serological, toxicologi-
cal and pathological
examination by interagency
or commercial contracts 10,800 10,800
Dr. L. R. Noyes, page 5 (wW-708)
18. Office and equipment
rentals, supplies and
materials, printing,
equipment, repairs,
telephone, telegraph,
postage, dip materials,
cattle marking paint and
other contingent expense 13,759 11,584
lg. . . .
"Total, Central Office
and Field Program $ 401,975 3gg,8oo
"Brucellosis Program
"For Salaries and Wages:
20. Supervising Veterinarian,
NTE $6,000 12,000 12,000
21. Supervisor of Laboratories 4,440 4,440
22. Senior Technician,
NTE $3,600
23. Clerk Typist, NTE $2,880
"Subtotal, Salaries and
Wages ,79,o8o 79,080
"For Other Expense:
24. Travel Expense 40,000 40,000
25. Consumable supplies and
materials, current and
recurring operation ex-
and capital ex-
~%%'(excluding travel) 4,000 4,000
"Total Brucellosis
Program $ 123,080 123,080
1,. . .
"The moneys appropriated hereinabove to the
Texas Animal Health Commission under the subhead-
ing 'Brucellosis Program' are to be expended pur-
suant to the provisions of House Bill No. 31, Acts,
1959, Fifty-sixth Legislature, Regular Session,
Dr. L. R. Noyes, page 6 (W-708)
and none of such moneys may be expended for purposes
other than House Bill No. 31. At the discretion
of the Executive Director of said Commission, how-
ever, personnel provided the Commission In Items 3
through 15 above, and appropriations for other costs
in Items 16 through 18, may be applied to the adminis-
tration of said House Bill No. 31.
"In instances where cooperative agreements are
made between cattle owners and the Texas Animal
Health Commission for reimbursing said Commission
in order to provide supervision, vaccination or
testing services by certified personnel in accord-
ance with the provisions of H.B. No. 31, Acts, 1959,
Fifty-sixth Legislature, Regular Session, such re-
imbursements are hereby appropriated to said Commis-
sion for the administration of the Brucellosis Program
in accordance with said H. B. No. 31.
"In the event that cattle owners elect to parti-
cipate in area or county programs for the control and
eradication of bovine brucellosis and to contribute
funds for additional personnel, supplies or operating
expenses for such program, such contributed funds are
hereby appropriated for the purposes specified for
such donors."
It is noted that the appropriation to the Texas Animal
Health Commission appropriates moneys by line item and author-
izes the expenditure of the items (Items 3-15 and 16-18) to be
applied to the administration of the Brucellosis Program author-
ized by House Bill 31.
Subdivision (k) of Section 3 of House Bill 3, Acts of
the 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, Chapter 100, page
213, provides:
"(k) No officer or employee of a state
agency, Legislator or legislative employee
shall receive any compensation for his ser-
vices as an officer or employee of a state
agency, Legislator or legislative employee
from any source other than the State of Texas,
except as may be otherwise provided by law."
Dr. L. R. Noyes, page 7 (WW-708)
In view of the provisions of Subdivision (k) of Sec-
tion 3 above quoted, any salary supplementation must come
from the State rather than any individual or group of indi-
viduals. See Attorney General's Opinion WW-376 (1958).
In Attorney General's Opinion ``-376 (1958), it was
held that the Board for Texas State Hospitals and Special
Schools may in its discretion "supplement the compensation of
the Executive Director of the Board from gifts or grants re-
ceived by the Board for the purpose of maintaining and operat-
ing research facilities and out-patient clinics, provided such
supplementation is consistent with the purposes of such grants
or gifts as specified by the donor. The amount of such supple-
mentation may be set by the Board, but should be commensurate
with the special duties performed by the Director in connection
with the maintenance and operation of research facilities ant'
out-patient clinics." It was specifically pointed out in that
opinion, however, that it was necessary to limit it to the
particular questions submitted and the answer to the question
was granted upon statutory authority which was not necessarily
applicable to other positions or situations. The fact situa-
tion involved in WW-376 revealed that the Board was authorized
to accept and disburse gifts by general law (Art. @j,V.C.S.),
and the biennium appropriation act appropriated such gifts
and donations for the purposes for which the donor had stipu-
lated.
In the instant case, however, there is no provision
in the general law authorizing the Texas Animal Health Com-
mission to accept gifts or donations, and such authority can-
not be granted by a rider to an appropriation act. State v.
Steele, 57 Tex. 200 (1882); Moore v. Sheppard, 144 Tex.-537,
192 S.W.2d 559 (1946); Attorney General's 0pinion w-96
(1957); Attorney General's Opinion w-692 (1959).
You are, therefore, advised that the salary paid em-
ployees of the Texas Animal Health Commission is limited to
the amount contained in the Items in the General Appropriation
Act.
SUMMARY
The compensation of the employees
of the Texas Animal Health Commls-
stlon is limited to the itemized
Dr. L. R. Noyes, page 8 (``-708)
amounts appropriated by the Legis-
lature to the Texas Animal Health
Commission for the payment of
salaries and wages.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General of Texas
JR:mfh
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman
Wallace Finfrock
J. Milton Richardson
Robert T. Lewis
James H. Rogers
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. V. Geppert