Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Hon. Tom Sealy, Chairman Opinion NO. s-116 The Board of Regents The University of Texas Re: (A) Allowance of travel Post Office Box 670 expense8 of faculty Midland, Texas member to deliver original rerearch before a learned society. (B) Ap- plicability of the limitation upon more than three persons attending any one convention or organized gath- ering to attendance by faculty members dellverlng orlglnal DePr Mr. Scaly: researches. You state that on November 9, 1953, the Geo- logical Society of America and the Mineralogical Society of America, both of which are "national learned-societies," held a combined annual meeting in Toronto, Canada, in conjunction with meetings of the Geological Association of Canada. You also state that Dr. Stephen E. Clabau&h, a member of the faculty of the Unlver8ltg, made a formal presentatlon of a paper at theae meetings covering the results of certain original researches made by him. First,, you ask whether Dr. Clabaugh may be refmburaed for all" travel expenses incurred by him in attending these meetings or, at leaat, for that portion of his travel expense incurred "within the United States." The controlling statute for all travel expense questions is Section 8 of the General Provisions of the current general approprlation,act. Acts 53rd Leg., 1953, Ch. 81, Art. VI, Sec. 8, p. 127 at pp. 345-3'18. Under the current act this single "Travel Expanses' section governs travel expense reimbursement for all agencies of the State government, whereas under previous Bon. Tom Scaly, pago 2 (~-116) appropriation acts thi8 subject wa8 regulated by sspa- rate 8peCial prori8ionr applicable,to each of the major clarrer of State agencies. After reciting certain ~r~;~‘f;~ry definition8 and limitations in Suboectlons “a Subsection “c” of Section 8 declare8 what 18 no doubt’the mo8t fundamental of’s11 llmitatlons on out-of-8tate (as well aa intrastate) travel expense reimbur8ement, namely, that reimburseable travel must be “for State bualne88.n* Subsection ‘c” next provides an admini8tratlve ryrtem for determining what is and what 18 not State burine88 for purposes of out-of-etate travel by requlrlng in moat case8 that the Attorney General make a prior written determination. Several exceptional case8 are listed in which the Attorney General’s determination 1s not required and among these is “out-of-state travel’on official State busine88 by officers and employee8 of the State agencien of higher education when 8uch travel has been specifically authorized by the appropriate governing board. ” In these exceptional ca8e8 the des- ignated board8 or officer8 must make the neceuary de- termination of purpo8e. The final paragraph of Subsection "d" obvl- ously pertain8 to the 8ubject of what 18 State business and, conrequently, mu8t be read in conjunction with Subsection “c” Cf. Act8 52nd Leg., 1951, Ch. 499, Art. V, Sec. 34, p. 1228 at p0 3.474. That final para- graph provider: "The fomal presentation of original re- rearcher, by an employee of an educational institution, if before a national, regional or state learned 8ociety approved in advance by l Section 8 doea not in 80 many words require that intrastate travel be for "State buriness" only. While not here involved, we deem it appropriate to ray that , ruch a requirement 18 implicit in the language and history of Section 8. While there are no particular criteria and there 18 no special admlnlatrative ryrtem provided in the statute for determining I'atatebwlnerr" in relation te intrastate travel reimbursement, the pertinent considerations for State officera ultimately making such determinations have often been di8ausaed. Att'y. Gen. Op. No. O-1195 (1939); Att'y. Gea. Op. NO. o-5769 (1944). Eon. Tom Scaly, page 3 (S-116) the administrative head of the SChOOI, shall be considered state business." In view of these provislon8, we think lt is clear that Dr. Clabaugh was on State business if hi8 presentation was "approved in advance by the admlnls- tratlve head" of the University and was "specificsIly authorized by the e D . governing board of the Univer- sity." If both of these condition8 were satisfied, Dr, Clabaugh may be reimbursed in accordance with Sec- tion 8 limitations for all expenses, whether or not incurred within the United States. Neither Section 8 nor any other law known to us declarea that State busfness can never be transacted outside of the United States. See Att'y- Gen, Op. No. O-5769 (1944). Of course, you are awere that Section 8 imposes numerous limitations on reimburseable expenses and that, among other things, Dr. Clabaugh, if eligible for reimburse- ment, would not be entitled to relmburoement for actual daily expenses in eXCe88 of $4 for meals and $6 for meals snd lodging since he 18 within none of the cate- gories excepted from Subsection "k." Cf. Att'y. Con. Op. No, MS-74 (1953)s The final sentence in Subsection I'c'is as follows~ "In no event 8hall more than three per- sons from any agency be approved for travel to any one convention, organized gathering; or meeting of a similar nature.' Your second question is whether this 'three-person" limitation applies to "officers or employees of edu- cational ln8titutlons in the formal prereatation of original researches before a natfonal, regional or state learned society." In our opinion, It maker no difference vhat kind of State business is performed by State officers or employees attending conventions, organized gether- fngs and meetings of e similar nature. For3 it is not the kind of State bU8ineSS but, rather, it is the kind of meeting that lo determinative a0 far es this Iimita- tiOn i8 concerned. The fact that the final paragraph of Subsection "d" explicitly define8 approved formal presentations of original researches as "State buriness" is of no distinguishing si&nificance. Numerous other . . Hon. Tom Sealy, pago 4 (~-1.16) State function8 are explicitly classified a8 8tate buri- ners in Subsection "c". Several of these involve at- tendance by State officer8 or employee8 et meetings and conferences. Yet, in our opinion the "three-perron" limitation applier to these defined functiona the 88me as it applies to out-of-rtate functions whlck must be approved by th8 Attorney General. Cf. Att'y. Gen. Op. No. V-1376 (1951). Regardless of who makar the deter- mination end gives final approval for travel to a con- vention -- the Attorney General, the Governor, the ap- propriate governing board of an agency of higher edu- cation, or some other officer or board -- no more than three persona shall be approved so as to become eligible for travel expense reimbursement from funds appropriated by Chapter 81. Therefore, you are respectfully advised that the 'three-person" limitation doe8 apply to out-of-rtate travel by officers and employee8 of educational inrtl- tutions for the purpose of formal presentation of orlgl- nal researches before nationrl, regional or state learned rocleties. SUMMARY A member of the faculty of the University of Texas who made e formal presentation of origl- nal researches at meetings of national learned- societies held in Toronto, Canada, may be reim- bursed for travel expenses to the extent permitted by the current general appropriation act if his presentation was approved in advance by the admln- lstratlve head of the Unlverslty and was specifi- cally authorized by the Board of Regentr. Act8 53rd Leg., 1953, Ch. 81, Art. VI, Sec. 8, p. 127 et pp. 345-348. The 'Ithree-personper convention" limita- tion contained in Subsection "cn of Section 8 applies to all travel expense to be reim- bursed from funds ap?roprieted by Chapter 81, Including travel by officers and employee8 of Bon. Tom Scaly, page 5 (~-116) educational ln8titutions for the purpose of formally presenting original researches before learned secleties. APPROVED: Yours very truly, Willis E. Gresham JOHN BEN SREPPERD Public Affair8 Division Attorney General John Davenoort Reviewer - Robert S. Trotti First Assistant Assistant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General PR:wb:l.m