Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

October 20, 1970 Hon. J. W. Edgar Opinion No. M- 709 Commissioner Texas Education Agency Re: Whether the Legislature has 201 E. 11th Street appropriated funds to estab- Austin, Texas lish and maintain regional diagnostic facilities as au- thorized by Section 11.15 of the Texas Education Code, as Dear Dr. Edgar: amended, and related questions. You have requested an opinion concerning the above stated matter. We quote from your letter: "Section 5 of House Bill 156 (Code provision 11.15), as amended by H.B. 432, 61st Leg., directs that the Commissioner of Education shall transmit to the 62nd Legislature an Interim report on the status of the research on the problem of diagnosin and treating language-handicapped children, and (2 7 include in the report an itemized estimate of the money required to conclude research project satls- factorily by August 31, 1972. In implementation of this research program contemplated by the Act, especially Section 11.15(h), subsections (2) and (3) of Texas Education Code, which call for the establishment and operation of at least three regional experimental diagnostic facillties,~and subsection (4) which authorizes the making of agreements toward the estab- lishment thereof, we currently are confronted with a two-fold problem. "First8 Is there an appropriation to sup- port the cost of establishment and operation of such regional facilities? "Second8 May subsection (4) of Section 11.15(h) T.E.C., be construed to empower the Texas Educa- tion Agency to contract with private firms, clinics or other acceptable associations for the performance of such experimental diagnostic treatment and program services, pursuant to Agency adopted regulations and/or guidelines? -3426- Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (M-709) “The Office of State Comptroller has apprised this Agency orally that in the absence of an Attorney General ruling It could not honor requests of this Agency for warrants In payment of costs for the es- tablishment and operation of such regional experimental diagnostic facilities, because there is no language in House Bill No. 156, as amended, or any other statute, which provides that such research program shall con- stitute a part of and be financed from the Foundation School Program or its Fund; and secondly, because there is no estimate or specified amount appropriated to the Texas Education Agency from the General Revenue Fund for such {eglonal and experimental diagnostic facilities purposes, The gist of the first question appears to be whether there is a specific appropriatlon.and prior authorization by the Legisla- ture to pay the cost of the establishment and operation of the re- gional facilities mentioned in your request. Section 44 of Article III, Texas Constitution, requires pre-existing law as a base for a specific appropriation. Austin National Bank v. Sheppard, 123 ‘f&.272, 71 S.W.2d 242 (19341. Section 6 of ArtlcleVIII, Texas Constitution, requires that a.specific appropriation be made before money is drawn from the treasury. The definition of “specific” as set forth in Section 6 was interpreted by the Texas Supreme Court In National Biscuit Company v. State, 134 Tex.293,135 S.W.2d 687 (1940)r (page 6931 “It is sufficient if the Legislature authorizes the expenditure by law, and spec;fles the purpose for which the appropriation Is made. In the instant case, House Bill No. 2, Aats 61st Leglsla- ture, 2nd Called Session, 1969, p. 890 (last appropriations act) provides: “There is hereby appropriated for the biennium ending August 31, 1971 . . . to pay ‘the State’s part of the Foundation School Program as provided for in . . House Bill No. 156, Chapter 451, . Acts of the 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 19671 . . . “There Is hereby specifically appropriated out of moneys in the Qeneral Revenue Fund not otherwise appropriated the amount necessary to pay the full amounts contemplated and provided by Senate Bill -3427- Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 3~ (M-709) No. 117 . should there be Insufficient money in the fund lreated bv said Senate Bill No. 117 to carry out the purposes and provisionsof Sedate Bill No. 117 . House Bill No. 156 . . . The appiopriatlon above shall be ex- v pen ed under - .” the .terms and provisions of said Senate Bill No. 117, supra, and the respective laws herein- above cited respectively. House Bill No. 156 referred to in the above, Act .was codified ae Article 2654-lc, Vernon’s ,Civil Statutes, and later adopted in the Texas Education Code as Section 11.15. At the same time, as adopted In the Code It was amended by House Bill 432, Acts of the 6lst Legisiature, Regular Session, page, 228 (1969). The net effect of this legislation is that House Bill 156, as referred to In the above quoted sections of the Appropriation Act, is very much alive, and in our opinion serves as existing law upon which a specific appropriation was made by the Legislature In the last Appropriation Act. Your second question also requires an affirmative answer. The authority and obligations of Section 11.15(h) ,of the Texas Education Code was not affected by House Bill 432, supra, and said Section authorizes and requires the. Central Education Agency to establish a minimum number of experimental diagnostic facilities with advice from the advisory council. This same section of ~the Code, and also pertinent provisions of House Bill 432, specifically provide that the agency shall make necessary agreements and contacts to establish the diagnostic facilities, and further authority Is given to seek assistance of both public and private concerns to develop a program for such facllltles~ SUMMARY Prior law exists upon which a specific ap- propriation was made to pay the cost of establlsh- lng and operating regional experimental diagnostic clinics as contemplated by the “Barnes-Wright Study Act”, Article 2654-lc, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Specific authority is given by Section 11.15(h) of the Texas Education Code for the Central Education Agency to contract with private firms to set up and operate the experimental diagnostic programs pursuant to Central Education Agency guidelines. -342a- Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (M-709) D C. MARTIN Prepared by James C. McCoy Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Ivan Williams Jerry Roberts Fisher Tyler Roger Tyler MEADEF. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFmDWALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant -3429-