.i -
S
August 28, 1952
Hon. G. E. Brereton, M.D., President
Board of Vocational
Nurse Examiners
Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1515
Re: Legality of paying surety
bond premiums from funds
appropriated to the Board of
Dear Sir: Vocational Nurse Examiners.
Your request for an opinion of this office re-
lates to the legality ofexpending funds of the Board of
Vocational Nurse Examiners in payment of premiums on
surety bonds for the Secretary-Treas,urerand office
personnel.
House Bill 47, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 1951 ch.
118, p. 197 created the Board of Vocational Nurse Ex-
aminers and the last sentence of Section 4 (b) thereof
states that "the Secretary-Treasurer shall be bonded
by the Board~in such amount as may be recommended by
the State Auditor."
In Attorney General's Opinion O-2092 (1940)
this office said:
II in order for the Chief Clerk of
the DepaGtment of Agriculture to be entitled
to reimbursement for the expense incurred by
him in furnishing the bond required by stat-
,ute,there must exist some statutory provi-
sion for the allowance and payment of the
same."
In Attorney General's Opinion O-3032 (1941) it
was said:
"This Act makes it the duty of the
inspectors to furnish bonds. There is no
provision in the statutes or in the current
appropriation bill providing for reimburse-
ment to the inspector for the expenses in-
Hon. G. E. Brereton, M.D., page 2 (V-1515)
curred by him in furnishing the bond requir4d
by the statute.
"It is the rule that anofficer or agent
of the State is allowed only such'compensa-
tion and emoluments as are expr~esslycon-
ferred upon him as remuneration for the dis-
charge of his official duties as an agent of
the State. McCalla v. City of Rockdale, 112
Tef. 209, 246 S.W. 654. It follows that any
public officer or agent who demands mileage,
fees or expenses must point out some statute
authorizing its allowance. Where a duty re-
q~uiringan expenditure of money is imposed
upon a public officer or agent, and no pro-
vision is made for reimbursement to this of-
ficer by the State for the expenses inc,urred,
such officer or agent is deemed to be repaid
for the expenses incurred in the discharge
of such duty byewhatever compensation is
allowed and paid to him for hissservices as
such public agent,"
In Attorney General's Opinion V-1255 (1951),
which related to the act under consideration, this of-
fice stated:
"Failure of the Legislature to make an
itemized appropriation in the general ap-
propriation bill for expenditures of the
Board in accordance with the proviso in
Section 13 of House Bill 47 does not affect
the availability of the appropriation made
by the general statute itself for the first
two years in which the Act is operative.
Otherwise, the intention Of the Legislature
to regulate the practice of vocational nurs-
ing would be defeated."
Section 13 of House Bill 47 provides in part:
"Upon and after the effective date of
this Act, all moneys derived from fees, as-
sessments, or charges under this Act, shall
be paid by the Commission into the State
Treas'uryfor safe-keeping, and shall by the
State Treasurer be placed in a separate fund
. 1.
Hon. G. E. Brereton,~M.D., .page 3 (V71515) ~~
to be avaflable'for the,use of .theCommis-
sion in theiadministration of the,Act upon
requisition of the Commission. All such
moneys so'paid into the State Treasury are
hereby specifically appropriated to the Com-
mission'for the purpose of paying the
salaries and.expenses of all persons em-
ployed or appointed as provided herein for
the administration of this Act, and all
other expenses necessary and proper for the
administration of this Act, including equip-
ment and maintenance of any supplies for
such~offices or quarters as the Commission
may occupy, and necessary traveling expenses
for the Commission or persons authorized to
act for it when performing duties hereunder
at the request of the Commission."
Section 13, in our opinion, is not sufficient
authorization for the payment of bond premiums of the
Secretary-Treasurer and office personnel in the absence
of specific authorization to that effect. This opinion
is to be distinguished from Opinion V-1255 inasmuch as
the general statute provided sufficient authority for
a general appropriation to be utilized by the Board
during the biennium. Any other holding would have
negatived the obvious intention of the Legislature in
creating a Board of Vocational Nurse Examiners to re-
gulate the practice of vocational nurses. But to say
that such authorization contained in the general stat-
ute is sufficient to authorize payment of items such
as the payment of bond premiums, which~it has been held,
must be specifically allowed, would be, in our opinion,
beyond the realm of statutory authorization contained
in Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, in answer to your
specific question it is our opinion that the Board of
Vocational Nurse Examiners would not be authorized to
expend funds of the Board in payment of bond premiums
for the Secretary-Treasurer of such board and the of-
fice personnel.
SlSMblARY
In the absence of specific authorization
the Board of Vocational Nurse Examiners is
not authorized to expend funds in payment of
Hon. G. E. Brereton, M.D., page 4 (V-1515)
premiums for surety bonds of the Secretary-
Treasurer and office personnel of the Board.
Yours very truly,
APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL
Attorney General
J. C. Davis, Jr.
County Affairs Division
-2.J
E. Jacobson BY
Reviewing Assistant Burnell Waldrep
Assistant
Charles D. Mathews
First Assistant
BW:am