Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

1 c. The Attorney General of Texas March 28, 1986 JIM MATTOX Attorney General Supreme Court Building HonorableAnn W. Xchards OpinionNo. m-459 P. 0. BOX 12548 Treasurerof the 'stateof Texas Austin. TX. 78711. 2549 51214752501 P. 0. Box 12608.GlpitolStation Ue: Whether awards to state Telex 9101874.1387 Austin,Texas 7:3711 employees under the State Telecopier 51Z475-0288 EmployeeIncentiveProgramcon- travenearticleIII, section44, 714 Jackson, Suite 700 of the Texas Constitution Dallas, TX. 752024506 2141742-8944 Dear Ms. Richards: You request legal advice on implementingthe State Employee 4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 180 Incentive Program, which was created by article 6252-28, V.T.C.S. El Paso, TX. 799052793 915/533-3484 See Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 873, at 6421. The statute creates the State EmployeeInclentiveCommission,consistingof the state auditor, the comptroller,,rlle treasurer,the administratorsof various agencies 1001 Texas, Suite 700 and three members of the public. Section 4 of article 6252-28, Houston, TX. 77002.3111 V.T.C.S..provide:3in part: 712&?23-58ea The ~commissionshall develop policies and 808 Broadway, Suite 312 organize procedures to implement a statewide Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 program to reward state employees in the manner 808,747.5238 providedby this Act for employeerecommendations that reduce.state expenditures,increase state 4309 N. Tenth, Suite B reventm3!, or improve the quality of state McAllen. TX. 78501-1885 service:r.. 5121682.4547 Sec. 4(a). Other provisionsestablishproceduresfor the submission, 2w MaIn Plaza, suite 400 evaluation,and adoption of employee recommendations.V.T.C.S. art. San Antonio, TX. 782012797 6252-28, 097-10. The commissionmay grant a monetary bonus to an 51212254191 employeewhose suggestionis implementedif it produces savings that can be computedu:iinga cost-benefitanalysis. Id. 92. Benefitsthat cannot be computed or intangible savings maybe recognizedby a An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer nonmonetarycertiiicateof appreciation.Id. Section2(e) states the formulafor compuzingthe amount of a bonu=warded under the program: (e) An employee whose recommendationresults in a net annual savings,or increasein revenues, of $100 or more is eligible for a bonus of 10 percent of the net savings,or revenue increase, up to a maximum award of $5,000. An employee whose ::trcommendationresults in a net annual savings, or increase in revenues, of less than p. 2097 I HonorableAno W. Richards- 'Page2 (JM-459) . I $100 is not eligible for a bonus but is eligible for a certificateof appreciation. You first ask whether the monetary awards authorizedby article 6252-28,V.T.C.S.,are constitutional under articleIII. section44 of the Texas Constitution. ArticleIII, section44 of the constitutionprovides: The Legislature shall provide by law for the cosmensationof arL officers, servants,agents and public contractors. . . but-shall not-grant - extra compensationto .z*y officer, agent, servant. or Public contractor+ after such public service shall have been performed or contract entered into, for the performanceof the same; nor grant, by appro- priation or otherrise,any amount of money out of the Treasury of tGc State, to any individual,on a claim, real or pritended,when the same shall not have been provide? for by pre-existinglaw. . . . (Emphasisadded). You are concerned about the constitutionalprohibition against grantingextra coupensatior, to an officerafter the serviceshave been performed. Article III, section 44, does not prohibit the payment of benefits to employees as en element of compensationor a tern of employment. & Byrd v. City of D;E8::6 $.$ ::t6J,T.'". 1928); Attornev General Ouinions H-1303 Article 6252-28, V.T.C.S.,'does not permit an.&ployee to receive extra compensationfor performingthe duties of his state anployusnt,as demonstratedby the exclusi,ans found in section6 of the statute: (a) Each full-time state employee is eligible to participateir.the programexcept an employee: (1) who has authority to implement the recommendation being made; . . . . (3) whose job descriptionincludes respon- eibilitpfor cost analysis,efficiencyanalysis, savings iuplemcntation,or other related pro- grams within ibe euployee'sagency; (4) involveidin, or who has access to, agency resear,chand development programs, if that informationis used as the basis of the recosmendation; or p. 2098 , HonorableAnn W. Richards- Page 3 (J&459) (5) whose job description includes developing the type of change in the agency administratior.that is recommended by the recommandstior.. . . V.T.C.S.art. 6252-28,56. The statuteinsteadadds a new term to an eligibleperson'semploymentrelationshipwith the state, enablingan employeeto receivecompensationfor performingintellectual work that is beyond the scope of his employmentresponsibilities and that has a concrete monetary value to the state. Merely by submitting a recommendation, an employel:assigns to the state all claims based on the recommendation.inclu~dingpatent claims, copyright claims, trademarkclaims,and other:analogousclaims. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-28, IlO( Thus, the state may receive some consideration from participants in the State Employees Incentive Program whose suggestionsare not implemented. Attorney General 0p::nionWW-790 (1960) determined that an employee awards program of the State Highway Commission did not violate article III, secizion44 of the Texas Constitution. The AppropriationsAct authorizedthe HighwayDepartmentto give employees serviceaward pins and certificatesas compensationfor longevityof serviceand safety award pins and certificatesfor safe operationof state equipment. Acts 195'):, 56th Leg:, 3d~C.S., ch. 23, at 590; see also Acts 1985, 69th Leg.. ch. 980, art. V, 511, at 7768 (simi~ vision in currentapproFriation8 act). The opiniondeterminedthat article III, section 44 of the constitutiondid not prohibit the awards,statingas follows: Just becausethe awardsare based on the lengthof the employee'sservice, it does not follow that the awards are 'additionalcompensation'in pay- ment for past serviceafter such servicehas been performed. It !.e within the discretionof the Legislatureto dd?terminethat a state employeeis more valuable to the State today because of his uperience gained by long and faithfulpast per- formance. Attorney General Opinion WW-790 (1960); see also Attorney General Opinion H-336 (1974). In our opinion, the legislaturemay also compensate employees for valuable suggestionspursuant to article 6252-28,V.T.C.S.,without violatingarticle III, section 44 of the Texas Constitution. We will deal with you::secondand third questionstogether. You ask whether funds have been appropriatedto the State Employees Incmtive Commissionfor the 1986-1987bienniumto make awards. If no funds are appropriated ta make awards under the State Employee IncentiveProgram,you wish to know whether a state agency,which has the authorityto accept donationsor gifts, may make awards on behalf p. 2099 HonorableAnn W. Richards- Page 4 (JM-459) of the commissionto state employeesbased on the recommendationof the commission. providesin part: Article6252-28.V.T.C.!;., Sec. 2. . . . (b) From fund% appropriatedfor this purpose, the State EmployesIncentiveCar mission may grant awards to eligi6le state emnlovees who make recommendationsi%at reduce state expenditures, increasestate revenues,or Improvethe qualityof state services. . . . . Sec. 4. (a) The commission shall develop policies and orgakize procedures to implement a statewideprogrsm:toreward state employeesin the manner proved by this Act for employeerecommenda- tions that red& state exuenditures.increase state revenues,or improve