The Attorney General of Texas
Novtmber 7. 1985
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
,,,wn&s&Buildln~
Mr. Vernon H. ArreL:L Opinion No. m-376
Commissioner
Audi”. TX. 7071% 2548 Texas Rehabilitatim Coamlssion Re: Whether article 6252-llc,
5121475.2501 118 E. Riverside Dr:lve V.T.C.S., applies to psychologists
T*lrx 0101874.1357
Austin. Texas 787134 who provide dlagnostlc and restora-
talecopler 512J4750256
tion services directly to clients
of the Texas Rehabilitation
714 Jackson. Sulle 700 Commlssloa
Dallas. TX. 75202-4506
2w742as44
Dear Mr. Arrell:
4824 Alberta Ave.. SUitC (80 You state t’hat the Texas Rehabilitation Commission provides
El Pnso, TX. 799052793 diagnostic and re~~toration semices to clients as required by federal
915/533.34S4 law and regulation., Among the services to be provided are psycholo- -.
gical services. I’he commission has arranged with licensed psycholo-
,I Texas, suite 700
gists to provide such services directly to the client at commi5sioa
nouston, TX. 77002-3111 expense. See Texas Rehabilitation Commission. Psychological Evalua-
7lY223aSS tions 6 Counseling 7. Maximum Affordable Payment Schedule, (revised
August 1, 1984) (fees for counseling performed directly by licensed
psychologist).
806 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479
8C6747.5238 You ask thl? following question about contracting licensed
psychologists to provide diagnostic and restoration services for your
clients:
4309 N. Tenth. Suits 6
McAll.n. TX. 78501-1685
512lS82.4547
Do the provision5 of article 6252-11~.
V.T.C.S<. I, ‘Use of Private Consultants by State
Agencies I)’ apply to psychological services that
200 M&I Plaza. Suite 4W are prov!;ded directly to clients of the commission
San Antonlo, TX. 782052797
for diagnostic and restoration services?
51212254191
Article 625:.-,llc. V.T.C.S., governs the selection and use of
An Equal OppOftUnitYl private consultants by state agencies. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-11~. 53.
Alflrmativs Action Employer It requires the agency to publish notice in the Texas Register
inviting offers for consulting services; after the agency contracts
vith a private consultant it must publish information about the
contract in the Texas Register. Id. 554. 6. Reports and other
materials developed by the cousultant must be filed vlth the Texas
State Library and, if requested, vith the Legislative Budget Eoard and
the Governor’s Bud:get and Planning Office. Id.
- 55.
p. 1717
Mr. Vernon Il. Arrcll - pagi, 2 (JM-376) *
Article 6252-11~. V.¶‘.C.S., vas enacted in 1977 and amended in
1979. Acts 1977, 65th Le&, ch. 454 at 1185; Acts 1979. 66th Leg.,
ch. 773, art. 98, at 1957. The 1979 amendmentm were enacted aa part
of Eouae Bill No. 1673, th’c State Purchasing end General Services Act.
Acta 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 773 et 1908. The caption of Rouse Bill No.
1673 reads aa follows:
&I Act rclat$n:$ to creation of the State
Purcheaing and Eeneral Services Commission and
abolition of rho State Board of Control.
Id. The caption does not mention the ameudments to article 6252-11~.
n.C.S.;. or the employwut of consultants by state agencies. The
State Purchasing and Geneml Services Comisaion he8 no duties under
article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S,;; the purchase of consulting services under
that statute is express1.y excepted from the State Purchasing and
General Services Act. V.Y.C.S. art. 601b, 53.01(b)(3).
Article III. section 35 of the Texas ConatltutZou provides that
[n]o bill, (except general epproprlatLon bills,
which may eml race the various subjects and
accounts, for md on accouot of which moueys are
appropriated) 5'2511 contain more than one subject,
which shall be expressed in its title. But if any
subject shall he: embraced in aa act, vhich shall
not be expressoil lo the title, such act shall be
void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be
so expressed.
The purpose of this secttoo is to give notice to the legislature and
the people of the subject matter of the proposed law, and thereby to
prevent passage of a law upon one subject under guise of a title which
expresses another. C. kaymen Construction Company v. American
Indemnity Company, 471T%.2d 564 (Tex. 1971); Gulf Insurance Compaq
v. James, 185 S.W.2d 966 (,Tex. 1945).
The cawion of Eome Bill No. 1673 does not nive notice of the
provisions amending article 6252-llc, V.T.C.S. Se;, e.g., C. Hayman
Constructioa Company Y. rkmericaa Indemnity Company, 7 Attorney
General Opinion VW-225 (:?157). House Bill No. 1673 there ore violates
article III. section 35 of the Texas Constitution. and it is void
insofar as it attempts to amend article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S. Arnold v.
Leonard, 273 S.W. 799 (Tsex. 1925).
Legislative history enables us to determine vhy the caption of
House Bill No. 1673 is deiective. The bill as introduced had the same
caption aa the enacted bill. It did not include the amendments to
article 6252-11~. V.T.C,.S., when introduced or vhen approved by the
p. 1718
Mr. Vernon H. Arrell - Page 3 (a-376)
Eouse. A Senate floor amendment iocluded the amendments to article
6252-11~. V.T.C.S., in Eoua~~ Bill No. 1673. Bill File for 8.1). No.
1673, 66th Leg. 1979, Legirilatlve Reference Library. The title of
Rouse Bill No. 1673 wes not rewritten to encompess the edditioael
material. The House adopted the Senate amendments snd Eouae Bill No.
1673
__._ carrled
---~~~~ the
.~~~ same
~~ tith when finally enacted aa when it vas
introduced. See generally Gulf Insurance Cbmpany V. James. 185 S.W.2d
966 (Tex. 1945): Attorney GUntitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion