. . . *
HE A ORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
MnY 14, 1957.
Bonor~ble Loulr Dugat, Jr.
chairma , CoiitlngedtExpense Committee,
Houre d! Re’@resentatives,
Aurtla, Texar . opinion no. ww-131
Re: Constitutionality of
H.S .R. 284, pertaining
to the payment of offi-
cial telephone calla by
Members bf the Iioi~ae,
during the Interim, be-
ginning immediately
following sine die ad-
journment of the 55th
Legielature and ending
at the convening of the
Dear Mr. Dugae: 56th Legislature.
In your letter of May 6, 1957, you have requested
an official opinion of this Department, concerning the con-
etitut~ionalityof Rouse Simple Resolution No. 284. You
further atate in your letter that:
“Inasmuch as the wording and provisions
of this resolution differ somewhat from
similar resolutions submitted for oplnlons in
the past, a new opinion is desired relative to
the provlsioue of House Simple Resolution no.
284 of the 55th Legialature .”
House Simple Resolution No. 284 reads as follows:
“BE IT RBSOLVRD by the Texas House of
Representatives, That the Committee on
Contingent Expense be directed to appropriate
from the Contingent Expense Fund whatever sums
shall be necessary to pay for official tele-
phone calls by Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives during the Interim, beginning im-
mediately following sine die adjournment of
the Fifty-fifth Legislature and ending at the
convening of the Fifty-sixth Legislature. It
Is provided, however, that no Member shall be
.. .
Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., Page 2 WW-131
allowed more than Twelve Dollars ($12)
monthly for telephone calls, and it is
further provided that no telephone expense
other than official calls which are properly
charged to the Member's official toll credit
cards shall beg paid by the Committee. The
Contingent Expense Committee shall make any
necessary rules or regulations concerning
interim telephone calls of Members and shall
have full authority to enforce such rules in
whatever manner they deem necessary or
advisable."
You are no doubt familiar with the previous opln-
ions delivered by this Department relating to the consti-
tutionality of similar resolutions. We shall Include In
this opinion a comprehensive survey of the rationale con-
tained in several of these prior opinions.
We are unable to find any distinction between the
resolution here being cotislderedand thatdiscussed la
Attorney General's Opinion No. MS-43. Both,contain a pro-
vision relating to payment by a toll credit card method.
Attorney General's Opinion MS-43 holds that expenditures
of this nature would~not be a lawful and proper use Of
State funds. It was therein stated:
"The ultimate issue posed is whether the
expenses here authorized to be paid are 'legis-
latlve~ expenses or 'personal' expeases of
the members. This office haa,oa aumerous
occasions, expressed ltself.:onanalogous ques-
~t~lons
. In every instance we have adhered to
the rule that compensation of Legislators Is
speaified and limited by Section 24 of Article
III of the Texas Constitution; and further,
that reimbursememt for 'personal' as opposed
to lleglslative' expeases is in the nature of
exaessive and unauthorized compensation; and
that the only expenses that are legislative
are those that relate to public purposes coa-
ceraed with duties imposed by law on members
Attorney Geaeral's
&%%:'aiii% (1953) V-772 (1949),
v-211 (19472, v-84 (194+
In answering your question we are guided not only
by the principles set forth in the cited Opinions, but we are
Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., Page 3 ww-131
also coatrolled by Attorney General’s Opiaio~ HO. 0-3778
tI?Kl). wherein a similar resolution of the. 47th Lsglsla-
- ._
hire 6s held invalid. In that instance tne resolut10n
purported to autho,risea rtipulated, monthly sum to each
Senator during the period between sessioas.
n
. . .for the purpose of defraying
the expease of hiring a part-time stano-
grapher to be used oaly for the purpose of
traasadting business Incident to his office
at State Seaator, aad only for State business;
and further for the purpose of defraylag the
expense of telephone, telegraph and postage
used oaly in State busiaess and incident to
his offl&e,as State Seaator.“[Emphasis added)
~Opinion Ho. 0-3778 contalas a thorough and
exhaustive review of the existing authorities, aa well as a
complete snd accurate analysis of the nature of “legislative”
aid ‘personal” expenses of Lsgislators. This Opinion reads
in part as,follows :
“It is believed that the matter of
legislative and personal expense may be
rationalized as follows. Legislative ex-
pense is that iacldeat to the workings of the
Legislature as an actual law-making body, a8
a whole, as the Legislature itself, when in
session; through a special committee dele-
gated by the Legislature while la sessioa to
work on a legislative matter between sessloas;
.through personnel employed to close matters
after adjourameat; or through employees mala-
talned between sessioas for the Care of the
legislative halls or for maintenance of a
central office or clearing house for legis-
lative matters between sessions e These
expenses are for the mutual benefit of all
msmbera -- for the Legislature Itself.
“Personal expense, on the other haad, Is
that Incurred, or which may be incurred, by a
Member between sessions working uader his Owa
will, la his owa discretion and as a matter of
iladlvidualeaterprise -- not as a part of the
Legislature In session or under extraordiaary
assignment from the body between sessions.
Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., Page 4 w-131
"If, therefore, aa allowance of expenses
to individual members of the Legislature
during a sosalon, or while on a committee
assignmeat between sessions, is presumtively
legislative expense, it does not follow that
an expense allowaace to each member indis-
criminately between sessions is likewise so.
To the contrary, in our opinion the latter is
presumptively personal expense.
"Essentially this view is grounded upon
the historical and constitutional concept of
a State legislative office, together with the
praatical workings of the constitutional
methods with reference thereto, and the dis-
cernible weight of the cases in support of
such conclusion."
The effect of these previous opinions Is that~such
expense canaot be paid out of public funds, and this pro-
hibition applies whether the funds are paid directly to the
Lsgislator, as in Opinion o-3778, or to a company with whom
he incurs the debt through a credit card device, as was the
case la Opinion No. W-43.
It is, therefore, our opinioa that the allowance by
House Simple Resolution Ho. 284 of the 55th Legislature, of
not to exceed TweIve Dollars ($12.00) monthly, for official
telephone calls by Members of the House of Representatives,
during the Interim, beginning immediately following sine die
adjourameat of the 55th Legislature, and ending at the con-
vening of the 56th Legislature, whether such funds are paid
directly to a Legislator or to a company with whom he incurs
the debt through a credit card device, is invalid and would
not constitute a lawful uae of State funds.
SUMMARY
House Simple Resolution No. 284, author-
izing an expenditure of not to exceed Twelve
Dollars ($12.00) monthly, for payment from
the Contingent Expense Fund for official tele-
phone calls by the Members of the House of
Representatives, during the Interim, beginning
immediately followlag sine die adjournmeat of
the 55th Legislature and eadiag at the conven-
ing of the 56th Legislature, whether such funds
are paid directly to the Legislator, or to a
company with whom he Incurs a debt through a
_. ._
Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., Page 5 ww-131
credit card device, is unconstitutional
as an unlawful use of State Funds.
Yours very truly,
WILL WIISOR
Attorney General
k?
B. H. Timminu, Jr. ?
Assistaat
BHT:pf:rh
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE.
H. Grady Chandler,
Chairman
James W. Wllsoa
Fred Werkenthin
Ralph R. Rash
REVIEWEDFORTREATTORERYGENRRAL
By: Geo. P. Blackburn