_ .
. .
THIC ATIWDRNEY GENERAL
OF 7JFExAs
Ausn~. T-s 78712
AlTORNlCY CIWERAL
August 2, 1968
Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion NO.M-263
Commissioner of Education
Texas Education Agency Re: Whether the Central Edu-
Austin, Texas 78711 cation Agency may assign
a staff member, under the
proposed agreement with
the United States Office
of Education, and continue
to pay his State salary
and benefits under a
partial.lyreimbursable
agreement during the period
of assignment to duties in
Washington, D.C., and re-
Dear Dr. Edgar: lated question.
You have requested the opinion of this office upon
certain questions, the first of which is as follows:
"1. May Central Education Agency assign a
staff member, under the agreement proposal by
the U. S. Office of Education, and continue to
pay him State salary and benefits (partially
reimbursable) during the time of such assign-
ment to duties at Washington, D. C.?"
In connection with the foregoing question you have
stated that pursuant to a proposed agreement between the Central
Education Agency and the United States Office of Education a
staff member of the Central Education Agency would be assigned
to the Washington, D. C. office of the United States Office of
Education as an Education Fellow. This staff member would spend
a period of ten months as an assistant on the staff of the
United States Commissioner of Education and following such as-
signment would return to the Central Education Agency. You have
stated that the purpose of the Fellowship program is to provide
your employee with the opportunity to gain an understanding of
the Federal-State-local educational relationships and become
knowledgeable about the role of the United States Office of
Education therein.
Tha annual current State salary of the staff member
-1272-
.
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (M-263)
being considered for assignment is $9,840.00. Under the pro-
posed agreement between the United States Office of Education
and the Central Education Agency, the staff member would be
retained on the payroll of the Central Education Agency during
the period of his assignment. However, under the proposed
arrangement, the United States Office of Education would reim-
burse the Central Education Agency at the annual rate of
$9,657.00. The question has arisen as to whether this staff
member may be paid by State warrant for the period of time
covered by the proposed agreement because such staff member
would not be performing the duties for which he was employed
by the State.
A review of the proposed agreement between the Central
Education Agency and the United States Office of Education re-
veals that such agreement actually is a grant from the United
States Office of Education to the Central Education Agency
to enable a staff member of the Central Education Agency to
obtain certain training and experience beneficial to the Central
Education Agency in its cooperative activities with the United
States Office of Education as the State is being reimbursed the
salary of the employee during the training period.
Section 5 of Article 2654-3b, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
provides that:
"The State Board of Education shall be re-
sponsible for maintaining State programs and
activities designed to bring about improvement
in the public schools. In discharging this re-
sponsibility, the Board is,authorized to enter
into contracts for grants from both public and
private organizations and to expend such funds
for the specific purposes and in accordance with
the terms of the contract with the contracting
agency." (Emphasis added.)
Senate Bill 15, Acts of the 60th Legislature, Regular
Session, 1967, the General Appropriations Bill, provides in the
departmental appropriation to the Central Education Agency that:
"The proper officer or officers of the
Central Education Agency are hereby authorized
to make application for and accept any other
gifts, grants or allotments from the United
States Government or other sources to be used
on cooperative and other projects and programs
in Texas. Any such Federal and other funds
- 1273-
, .
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 3 (M-263)
as may be deposited in the State Treasury are
hereby appropriated to the specific purposes
authorized by the Federal Government and
other contracting organizations, and the
State Board of Education is author- ex-
pend these funds in accordance with the terms
of the contract with the contracting agency._,
. . . (Emphasis added.)
The answer to the question which you have initially
posed is governed by the application of Section 51 of Article III
of the Texas Constitution, which is set forth, in part, as follows:
"The Legislature shall have no power to
make any grant or authorize the making of any
grant of public moneys to any individual, as-
sociation of individuals, municipal or other
corporations whatsoever; . . ."
While it is apparent that the foregoing constitutional
provision prohibits the Legislature from granting or appropriating
public moneys to any individual, association of individuals, mu-
nicipal or other corporations, the Texas courts have interpreted
Section 51 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas as not pre-
venting the Legislature from appropriating State funds to an in-
dividual, association of individuals, municipal or other corpora-
tions if the use and purpose of the appropriation is for the
furtherance of the governmental duties of the State. If the ap-
propriation is for a use not related to State governmental duties
and functions, such appropriation is a gratuity and invalid.
Bexar County v. Linden, 110 Tex. 339, 220 S.W. 760 (1920); Road
District No. 4, Shelby Co. v. Allred, 68 S.W.2d 164 (Comm.App.
1934) opinion adopted by the Supreme Court; City of Aransas
Pass 4. Keeling, 112 Tex. 339, 247 S.W. 818 (1923); Jones v.
Alexander, 59 S.W.Zd 1083 (Connn.App.1933), opinion adopted by
the Supreme Court; Texas Pharmaceutical Association v. Dooley,
90 S.W.Zd 328 (Tex.Civ.App. 1936); Jefferson Co. v. Board of
Co. and Dist. Road Indebtedness, 182 S.W.2d 908 (1944).
The authorization for the expenditure of appropriated
funds for State employees to attend schools, clinics, conferences
and other activities for training purposes is directly and sub-
stantially related to the performance of the State's governmental
functions and duties. The limitation imposed by the provisions
of Section 51 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas, is
that no State employees or officials may attend schools, clinics,
conferences or other like activities, at State expense, when
such activities bear no substantial and direct relation to the
governmental duties and functions of the State.
-1274-
. .
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (M-263)
In reviewing past Attorney General's Opinions on the
question of training of governmental personnel, it is noted that
the following rules have been consistently applied to determine
whether the training was such that the State could pay for it.
The question asked is whether the training described will be
directly and substantially used to facilitate the governmental
duties and functions of the State agency requesting such train-
ing. Also, whether the facts establish that there is a rea-
sonable, substantial and direct relationship between the purpose
of the training and the accomplishment of the governmental
functions entrusted to the employee. Attorney General's Opinion
WW-83 (1957) - Insurance Commission employee training at IBM
school, two weeks course; Attorney General's Opinion WW-223
(1957) - Department of Public Safety employee pilot training
in Flight Proficiency Training Program; Attorney General's
Opinion R-2128 (1950) - Department of Public Safety employee
training in Police Administration at Northwestern University,
four and one-half months,course; Attorney General's Opinion
WW-433 (1958).
In applying the above rules to the fact situation that
you have presented, it is our'opinion that the training pro-
vided your staff member, under the proposed agreement with the
United States Office of Education, will be directly and sub-
stantially used to facilitate the administration of the govern-
mental duties of the Central Education Agency. As the Central
Education Agency must of necessity work closely with the United
States Office of Education, it would appear to be most advan-
tageous to have employees of your agency familiar with the op-
erations of this Federal agency , as well as the programs which
are administered by them which would be beneficial to the Central
Education Agency. Cooperating and dealing with the United
States Office of Education in programs and activities designed
to bring about improvement in,the public schools of this State
is an authorized governmental function and duty of the Central
Education Agency. The training in question bears a reasonable,
substantial and direct relationship to such governmental duties
and functions.
Consequently, we are of the opinion that the Central
Education Agency has the authority to enter into an'agreement,
such as the proposed agreement, with the United States office
of Education, and that the employee of the Central Education
Agency assigned to the United States Office of Education at
Washington, D. C.,for training, may continue to be paid his
salary as a State employee.
The next question which you have posed is as follows:
-1275-
. .
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 5 (M-263)
"2. Does Central Education Agency have
the authority to pay registration, tuition fees,
travel, per diem and other necessary expenses
(reimbursable from Title V funds) to staff-
salaried employees who are selected, authorized
and directed by the Commissioner of Education to
attend certain institutes, seminars, workshops
or other like training programs (sponsored by
recognized training facilities or institutions
of higher learning) and designed to improve
their professional and/or technical knowledge
toward the performance of their State job?"
In connection with the foregoing question you have
stated that:
"A second separate problem concerns one of
the plans involving the Central Education Agency
under Title V, Section 503, P.L. 89-10, the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This
State plan and application for Federal funds was
developed pursuant to that Act to provide for pay-
ment of registration, tuition, fees, travel, perdiem
and other necessary expenses for selected staff
members who have been authorized and/or directed
by me as Commissioner of Education to attend in-
stitutes, seminars, workshops, or other training
courses sponsored by institutions of higher learn-
ing or other recognized training institutions to
improve their professional and technical knowledge,
and thereby be the better prepared and informed
to perform their Agency jobs. . . .
"Staff members are selected to participate
in training courses that are compatible with their
field of specialization and all training programs
must stand to serve the best interests of the
Central Education Agency and contribute to the
improvement of public education in the State of
Texas. Most of the training courses involved are
sponsored by institutions outside the State and
are of varying duration. Some involve as little
as two or three days; whereas others may be as
much as three or four months in length."
In connection with the foregoing question and facts,
you are concerned with whether the salary and travel expenses
of these employees selected to attend institutes, seminars,
- 1276-
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 6 (M-263)
workshops or other training courses may be paid. In this
connection, you have referred to Sections 7, 9, 13, 14, 18 and
25 of Article V of Senate Bill 15, Acts of the 60th Legis-
lature, Regular Session, 1967, as well as Article 5165a,
Vernon's Civil Statutes, and Article 6813b, Vernon's Civil
Statutes.
The aforesaid provisions deal with such subjects as
employee vacation and leaves, absences from the State, general
travel provisions, transportation allowances, restrictions on
registration fees, the appropriation of Federal funds received
by State agencies to the agencies receiving the same for the
purposes for which the Federal grant or aid was made, weekly
working hours of State employees and salaries of State employees.
A review of the plan and appliaation of the Central
Education Agency to obtain Federal funds under Section 503 of
Title V, P.L. 89-10, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, reveals that such application for Federal funds has
as its purpose the strengthening of State Departments of Edu-
cation by staff development. Such result is to be accomplished
by employees of the Central Education Agency attending institutes,
seminars, workshops or other training courses to improve their
professional and technical knowledge and thereby be better pre-
pared and informed to perform their duties with the Central
Education Agency.
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that
the proposed activities of the Central Education Agency in having
certain employees attend training courses is a valid exercise
and function of the duties conferred upon the Central Education
Agency by the Legislature, and upon the same basis and reasoning
set forth in our answer to your initial question.
In regard to the reimbursement of travel expenses and
registration fees of your staff members attending institutes,
seminars, workshops or other training courses in connection with
the Federal plan you have submitted, we would like to call your
attention to Attorney General's Opinion C-761 (1966) which held
that:
"In Attorney General's Opinion C-671 (19661,
it was held that appraisers employed by the
Veterans' Land Board may attend an appraisal
school at Texas A&M University and have their
registration fees paid by the State. In that
opinion, it was stated Section 18 of Article V
of the General Appropriation Act of the 59th
Legislature, pertaining to expenditure of money
-1277-
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 7 (W-263)
for dues or registration in joining or attending
any type of organization, has no application so
long as the State employee aoes not join the
organization. Likewise, it was held in Attorney
General's Opinion C-692 (19661, registration
fees necessary to attend courses of instruction
deemed necessary to the furtherance of govern-
mental duties, imposed upon a State agency, may
be paid by such State agency. . . .'I
In Attorney General's Opinion C-551 (1965), it was held
that:
"Federal 'trust' funds appropriated to the
Health Department may be expended for transporta-
tion, meals and lodging for personnel attending
schools, clinics or conferences when leave from
regular duties exceed thirty (30) calendar days
in accordance with the agreement under which
the funds are received; however, State derived
funds appropriated to such department for personnel
training may not be expended for this purpose
other than in accordance with . . . the General
Appropriations Act (19651."
The foregoing opinions clearly set forth that payment
of registration fees required to enable State employees to attend
training courses necessary to the furtherance of their govern-
mental duties is authorized by the Texas Education Agency, and
that Federal "trust" funds appropriated to the Central Education
Agency may be expended for transportation expenses of employees
in accordance with the agreement under which the funds have been
received by the Central Education Agency from the Federal Govern-
ment.
SUMMARY
The Central Education Agency may assign a
staff member, under the proposed agreement between
the Central Education Agency and the United States
Office of Education, to duties at the United States
Office of Education in Washington, D. C., for train-
ing purposes, and such employee may continue to re-
ceive and be paid his State salary.
The Central Education Agency has the authority
to pay registration, tuition fees, travel, per diem
and other necessary expenses of staff members who
are selected and directed by the Commissioner of
-1278-
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 8 (M-263)
Education to attend certain institutes, seminars,
workshops and other like training programs de-
signed to improve their professional and technical
knowledge in the performance of ir State job.
/v
C. MARTIN
ey General of Texas
Prepared by Pat Bailey
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman
Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman
Alan Minter
Neil Williams
Edward Esquivel
Brock Jones, Jr.
A. J. CARUBBI, JR.
Executive Assistant
- 1279 -
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion