The Attorrmy General of Texas JIM MATTOX December 19, 1985 Attorney General Supreme Court Building Bonorable Oscar B. gauzy Opinion No. JM-393 P. 0. BOX 12543 Chairman Austin, TX. 75711. 2549 51 W75.2501 Committee on Jurisprudence Re: Interpretation of Rider No. 7 Telex 9101574-1367 Texas State Senate to the appropriation for the Texas Telecopier 512i47502SS P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station Adult Probation Commission in the Austin, Texas 78711 General Appropriations Act passed 714 Jackson, Suite 700 by the Sixty-ninth Legislature Dallas. TX. 752024503 2141742.9944 Dear Senator Mausy: You have asbsd a question about language in a rider to the 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 General Appropria::Lons Act passed by the Sixty-ninth Legislature. 915/533-3464 Rider No. 7 to the appropriation for the Texas Adult Probation Commission provides: 1001 Texas, Suite 700 It is tb.e,intent of the Legislature that the Adult Houston. TX. 77002-3111 Probation Commission shall reduce per capita state 7131223.55% aid payments to local probation departments by a sum equal to the amount by which the local proba- 606 Broadway, Suite 312 tion departments' actual payments for mileage or Lubbock, TX. 70401.3479 monthly car allowances exceed the payments which 8061747.5238 would be justified using the state mileage reim- bursement rate upon a determination by the Adult 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B Probation Commission that the actual payments did McAllen, TX. 78501.1885 exceed the state mileage reimbursement rate. In 5121682.4547 viewing the mileage or car allowances paid by local probation departments and in making related adjust- 2M) Main Plaza. Suite 400 ments in, per capita aid, the Adult Probation Com- San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 mission ;'hall not consider mileage or car allow- 512/225.4191 ances pr&ded to individuals employed by probation departmeEts as of May 31, 1985. (Emphasis added). An Equal Opportunity1 Affirmative Action Employer General Appropriatfons Act, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, at 7452. The underlined language is, in effect, a grandfather clause. You state that some local probation departments are interpreting that clause as not applying to probation officers who were trainees on May 31, 1985, and 410 have now become regular probation officers. Assuming this rider is valid, the clause in question applies to -persons who were employees on May 31, 1985. It is not limited to p. 1800 Honorable Oscar 8. Mauzy - Page 2 (JM-393) persons who were probation officers on that date. Anyone who works for a probation department. for compensation is an employee. See -western National Life &surance Company v. Black, 383 S.W.Zd 806, 809, 810 (Tex. Civ. App. -?exarkana 1964, writ reiETb n.r.e.1; Ackley v. State, 592 S.W.Zd 606, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, if trainees receive cosmensatlon from local Drobation deoartments, thev are employees of such departments. The-grandfather- clause in the rider set out above applies to anyone who was an employee of a local probation department on May 31, 1985. SUMMARY If the rider is valid, the grandfather clause in Rider No. 7 to the appropriation for the Texas Adult Probation commission in the General Appro- priations Act enacted by the Sixty-ninth Legisla- ture applies to anyone who was an employee of a local probation department on May 31, 1985. JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACKHIGHTOWBR First Assistant Attorney General MARY KELLER Executive Assistant Attorney General ROBERT GRAY Special Assistant Attorney %neral RICK GILFIN Chairman, Opinion Committee Prepared by Sarah Woelk Assistant Attorney General p. 1801