Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Honorable Raymond W, Vowel1 Acting Executive Director Board for Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools Austin, Texas Opinion No. WW-249 Re : Whether the various State Hos- pitals may furnish food, lodg- ing and laundry to its employ- ees and charge therefor in accordance with Section 3 of Article II of House Bill 133, Acts 55th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 385, page 925, and related question. Dear Mr. Vowell: Your request for an Opinion, dated August 20, 1957, submits the following two questions for our consideration: 1, May "1State hospital furnish food, lodg- ing and laundry to its employees and charge for same in accordance with Section 3 of Article II of House Bill 133, Acts 55th Legislature? 2. If in your opinion the foregoing question should be answered in the affirmative, then Is that part of Section 3 of Article II of House Bill 1339 which re-appropriates monies collected for these services to the item "other operating ex- penses" valid? Your letter points out that the Comptroller of Fub- lit Accounts has taken the position that the matter of furn- ishing and charging for meals by the various hospitals under your Board's jurisdiction is properly a subject for general. legislation and that the Board for Texas State Hospitals and special Schools obtains no authority with respect thereto by reason of a special provision in the Biennial Appropriation Bill for the ensuing Biennium. You further state that if the interpretation of the Comp,trollerof Public Accounts is correct Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 2 (W-249 1 the entire hospital system of Texas will be deprived of ap- proximately $~OO,OOO,OO in operating funds during the next biennium. Section 3 of Article II of House Bill 1339 Acts 55th Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 385, at page 925 (same being a part of the Biennial Appropriation Act) provides as follows: "Services to employees and guests. In o:rder to reimbu,rseequitably ?he a;>roprla,Zo.nZ.?emsi:r this Article from which expenditures are made for services to employees and guests, the following reimbursement rates and rules shall apply: lsServ%cesfurnished by the inst~,tuticn::o s;ued at not !~~ess employee shall be 'cc t!-.sn ,t"efoi.- low$ng : $ 5 per month foz.~ laundry $I,5per -month~fcr1odgin2, excluding medical pe:r::.xm.el 01 hospital system $15 per month per room for the first room for lodging of medical personnel of hospital system arm $10 per month ner room for eac‘raddl,tio.nal rcom 'f(:cl:.+~tiQT, fur ~er?~.Lces rendered employees and cc=;+s s':lail, je x&.y 5; a deuuction r'romthe re- cipiZntDs salad?;: or by ,:iis!l pa:yzentin advance. Suc'i;Jodl;ictior~:~ and othe:-receipts fc: ,tl:ese serv- ices,frsm empl.oyeesand guests are hereby reappro- priated to the PO,t'ner Oper~atingExpenses' of the institutfon. Refunds 7;~:~excess coliections shall be made from the appropr‘iationto which the collec- tion was deposited. Wmployees residing away from the grounds of the institutions in which they are employed shall Day cash for only s,uchmeals at the institutions as 5: ,~i,ey :::ayactaailp take9 ehd 'shireshall be no deduc- tions from the re;ular s:il,arypayment due employees af the respec-tfz :r:st:: t-z?'3n.e for institutional services or emoluments n,ctactually received by said ernployee~,~~ Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 3 (w-249 1 General legislation constitutes a separate subject and cannot be included within a general appropriation bill. Article III9 Section 35 of the Constitution of Texas; Moore et al v0 Shenuard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S.W.2d 599; Attorney General's Opinion WW-96 (S957)e A rider attaehed to a general appropriation bill cannot repeal, modif-y 3r amend an existing eneral law. Conlev v0 Daughters of the Reuubiic, 151 S.W, 877; Linden v0 Finley, 92 Tex. 451, 49 S,W. 578. See page 10 of Attorney General's Opinion No. V-1254 for numerous Attorney General's 0pEn:ons so holding. We must first consider whether Section 3 >f Article II of the Biennial Appropriation Bill falls within the prohi- bitions of the foregoing rules. We agree with the Comptroller of'Public Accounts that the autho-fzsticn 'or Yne various state hospitals to furn- fsh the foregoing servkas and tc make charges therefor must be given by zenera law and cannct properly be covered by a rider to the general a:i;;ropriatfon bill. In this co'nnection, there fs no statutory c,rconstitutfonal provision which apecf- fically supplies such authorization. It remains for us to consider whether such authorization may reasonably be implied from the various general statutes concerning the establishment and operation of the affected institutions. Artkle 3'_'74bof Vernon's Civil Statutes creates the Board for Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools, and Sec- tion 2 thereof prescrtbes the duties of the Board in the fol- lowing terms: n0 D 0 Effective September 1, 1949, the con- trol ani managemen:'ofp;yf ;;;,;;Eh;sz pr;;i.$es, ,zizlc powers .$and d-2,tit Texas State BospLtjl? and Specfal Schools which are now vested fn and exercised by the State Board of Controlsshell be transferred to, vested in, and exercised by the Board for Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools. 0 0 -I' Section 5 of said Article provides: " 0 0 0 The Board shall have the authority to prcmulgate sucn rules and reg,ulat.ions as it deems proper for the efficient administration of this Act. 0 0 DII An examinatfon of the various legislative enactments providing for the establishment and operation of the several Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 4 (WW-249) institutions now under the jurisdiction of the Board reveals that such statutes generally do little more than to set forth the purposes of each institution in the most general terms. It is readily apparent that if the Board in the administra- tfon of the affairs of the various fnstitutions was restricted to the exercise of only those powers specifically enumerated by general legislation, it would be wishout ;jo\:?rto s ttain its statutory purposes. The Legislature has vested “control and management of, and aES ri;ti:s., privileges, powers and du- thereto” in sa1.dioard. yi--i tfes %ncl,den,t ; ‘;, ,;1 cl,~a,indi- intent tha,?the 9~:s “3r Teyis State cation of leg.IslatzKve HospSta1.sand Special School: s should be vi ?ted with authority to determine, by the exercl, =a of sound 3.5Tcrationin the light of prevailing circumstances, wkiatpowe’:smust,be exerci,sedand duties performed by sa,IdBoard in t’re;:“c??rand e?fjcient accompl.ishmentof the Z.egds9ativeman?: ‘,a9g’:: bze,ct: y t~ile quali- ffcatfon that ,th-?re must be a reasonab:.e r-z;,:2tir,r,s hi.abetween the activity undertaken and,the statutrq pu,roo>ejo? the par- ticular institution. ?;:ingf,ha It is our un~?er;:h t ii‘?furnL.shingof meals, laundry, services, etc,, ,tc -2’i:!lcyess :;cC, .:uestsis not treated by the Board e,sa commercia: ::’profit-maki,ngventure B but to the contrary, it is underta5 ‘bas F function incidental to and reasonabl,yn,ecessaryfor-th5 + 7,er i.clmlrri~,tra tion of the state hospital system. As you have pointpa out in you? letter, many of the state hospitals are many mfl,ss ::“?mtowel,and prl.vate facilities which su.ppEythe questioned:.j?rv:icesaxe not con- veniently avail.abln 0 Ir:-~i.,-iew I,ft-c+;uregTf?:-L 3 ‘T ri 0-c c?piniontkat Sec- ~~ tfon 3 1~:ArtSc,;e11 0;”t;-ege’rT,:?rb,; ,:k;i+,io;;rf,, ,Gionact, 13 in all respects .aI+il+,i,~~? te and co‘st;tut%c:::,.3 exercise of leg- islc~;f,wauthority, ;y& A.:;+,hf~riaa I;i:~,n h,- ‘,..eBo,ard::,rTsxas State Hospitals snd Special Schc,ols“,of:l,i :li sk the questioned services ‘toerqdoyees and guests is not derived from this sec- tion of the general appropriation bill.,‘butfrom the general laws 9 as above set forth, pertaining to the operation of the state hosp9tal.s. In fact, the general.appropsiation bill does not purport ?‘~3.+e+?c sou.r”e6f s-wt.aLitho.!:i.ty9 but to the con- trary, we think tha.tthe language u.sedtherein indicates recog- nition by the .Legislat?zr4that such author.“ltyexists independ- ently of said provision. We believe t!:atun~;nrthe circumstances, Section 3 of Article IL9 ey[:.; 3.;!rper:,T,- qe’Ji’y;* %e amount to be charged for each item of :;ervfcear& rea.pproprfatetrleamount collected to the “Other Operating Expenses” of the particular institution involvedD Although the latter are matters not cove~redby gen- eral law, we thh& same are clearly m..attersnecessarily connected _ . “. Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 5 h”d-249 1 with and incidental to the appropriation and use of the funds and do not conflfct with or amount to general legislation. Conley v. Daughters of Republic, m0 You are Lherefore advised: lo Tnat the ;~cspital,sunder the supervi,slcrand con- trol of ,theBoard fo:%Texas State Hospitals and Special Schools may furnish food, l=dgi,ngand l,aundryto its employ’ees9where the Board in tnneexerci,::e of sound,disere,t-i.on h<:s“etermined that the furnfshfng of such szvices is incidental ?G aridrd3- sonabQ necessary f .z the proper and effici,entadmini,scratioc rnsgectfve hospitals. Charges shall F+ and functioning of ,tk:e made for such services and the funds realized tkzrefr;m re- approprlrted and used in acccrdanee with Section 3 cp &tide II of House Bill.X33,0 That port$o;lof Sccti,Dn3 of Article II of House Bill ;,33$ whi’s:l re-apprsprfates monies collected for these services to t1heitem fsOtherOperatSng Expenses” is valid. Very truly yours, WILL WILSON, efL/P Att,?rn,~y’ General of Texas LP:Jl nwb BY Leonard Passmore Assistant Honorable Raymond W, Vowell, page 6 (W-249) APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE H. Grady Chandler, Chairman Howard Mays Sam Lane James W. Wflson REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENXZRAL BYs GPO~ P, Blackburn