Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. -
The Attorney General of Texas
December 31, 1982
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Ms. Mary Jo McCrorey Opinion No.MW-585
Supreme Court Building Executive Director
P. 0. BOX 12546
Austin. TX. 76711. 2546
State Board of Barber Examiners I&?: Construction of appropria-
5121475-2501 5555 N. Lamar, Suite H-111 tions act rider on cooperation
Telex 9101674-1367 Austin, Texas 78751 between State Board of Barber
Telecopier 512/4750266 Examiners and Texas Cosmetology
Commission
1607 Main St., Suite 1400
Dallas, TX. 75201.4709 Dear Ms. McCrorey:
2141742.6944
You have requested our opinion as to the construction of the
following appropriations act rider enacted by the Sixty-seventh
4624 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160
El Paso. TX. 79905-2793 Legislature:
9151533.3464
It is the intent of the [llegislature that an
interagency contract shall be executed between the
1220 Dallas Ave., Suite 202
HOUS,O”, TX. 77002-6986
State Board of Barber Examiners and the Texas
7131650-0666 Cosmetology Commission to reduce duplication of
activities in inspections, enforcement and
examination.
606 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479
General Appropriations Act, Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 875, art. I, at
6061747-5236
3376.
4309 N. Tenth, Suite B You ask the following question concerning this rider:
McAlle”. TX. 78501.1685
5121662.4547
Is the Barber Board obligated by virtue of the
above-quoted portion of the appropriations bill to
200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 enter into an interagency contract with the
San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797 Cosmetology Commission providing for crossover
5121225-4191 inspections or is a good-faith effort to do so all
that is mandated?
,4n Equal Opportunity1
Affirmative Action Employer In order to answer your question, we must first determine whether or
not this rider is a valid enactment.
Article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution has long been
construed to prohibit the enactment of general legislation within a
general appropriations bill. Moore V. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559,
561-62 (Tex. 1946). A rider to a general appropriations bill is valid
if its only effect is to "detail, limit, or restrict the use of the
p. 2172
Ms. Mary Jo McCrorey - Page 2 (Mw-585)
funds... therein appropriated." Attorney General Opinions MU-389
(1981); MW-51 (1979); V-1253 (1951). As this office said in Attorney
General Opinion V-1254 (1951):
[iln addition to appropriating fll0*l?yand
stipulating the amount, manner, and purpose of the
various items of expenditure, a general
appropriation bill may contain any provisions or
riders which detail, limit, or restrict the use of
the funds or otherwise insure that the money is
spent for the required activity for which it is
therein appropriated, if the provisions or riders
are necessarily connected with and incidental to
the appropriation and use of the funds, and
provided they do not conflict with general
legislation.
In Attorney General Opinion MW-51 (1979), we considered the
following rider:
The State Board of Control shall establish a
maximum and a minimum monthly charge for state
employee parking of $16 and $6 respectively for
facilities within its jurisdiction. The Board is
authorized to charge varying rates within the
above limitations based upon the type and location
of parking space made available accepted by a
state employee.
The opinion held that this rider was invalid, since it:
neither appropriates nor details, limits or
restricts the use of funds. It is instead a
general directive to the State Board of Control to
take certain affirmative action, and it may not
validly be included in the General Appropriations
Act. Accordingly, the Board of Control has the
authority to set parking rates under the authority
.granted it by section 3(g) of article 678e,
V.T.C.S., and it is not limited to the minimum and
maximum rates set out in the appropriations act.
In our opinion, the rider at issue here is likewise deficient.
It does not appropriate any funds nor does it detail, limit or
restrict the use of funds appropriated elsewhere. Rather, it is a
general directive to the State Board of Barber Examiners and the Texas
Cosmetology Commission to take specific affirmative action. As such,
it may not validly be included within an appropriations act. It is
our opinion that, since the rider in question constitutes general
p. 2173
Ms. Mary Jo McCrorey - Page 3 (MW-585)
legislation, it is violative of particle III, section 35 of the Texas
Constitution, and hence, void and of no effect. As an invalid
provision, it cannot require the Barber Board to take any action at
all, either to actually enter into a contract or to make a good faith
effort to do so.
SUMMARY
A rider to the general appropriations act
requiring cooperation between the State Board of
Barber Examiners and the Texas Cosmetology
Commission constitutes an invalid attempt to enact
general legislation within an appropriations bill,
in contravention of article III, section 35 of the
Texas Constitution. It is therefore void and of
no effect.
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 L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Rick Gilpin
Shawn Jamail
Jim Moellinger
p. 2174