Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

PRICE DANIEL .~TTORSEY‘F.XVERAL July 31, 1947 Hon. C. H. Cavness, Opinion No. V-325 State Auditor, Capitol Station, He: Authority of the Comptroller to Austin, Texas pay a Universltg of Texas pro- f&sor who holds, at the same time, a teachLng position in the Austin Public Schools. Dear Slri Specifically you inquire as to whether it would be a violation of Section 33, Article XVI of the ConstFtutior for a professor at 4he University of Texas, either full tLme or part time, also to teach part time in the Austin Public Schools and draw pay concurrently from both the UniversLty of'Texas and the Austin Public Schools. Section 33 of Article VI of the Constitution, Fr.3ofar as pertinent, is as follows: "The accounting officers of this State shall neither draw nor pay a warrant upon the Treasury ln favor of any person, for aalary'.orcompenaatlor. as agent, officer or appointee, who holds at the same time any other office or pokition of honor, trust or proflt, under this State. . *" This section pertains only to the authority of tkie accounting officers of the State to draw or pay a warrant upon the Treasury, and has nothing whatever to do with the authority of a city as a school district to pay the salaries of its teachers. In 1913, Lieutenant Governor Mayea desired to a-cept a position as Professor of Journalism at The Unlversitg Of Texas. This Department held, in an opinion by Hon. C. M. Curetor-,L,her. First Assistant Attorney General, later Chief Juatke of the Supreme Court, that: "A professor in the University of Texas is not an officer of this State, but is simply an employee of the Board of Regents of the ::. University, who holds his position by virtue of the contract slone. . . . Hon. C. H. Cavness, page 2 V-325 “From this reasoning we deduce that a pro- fessor In the University is,‘ln a limited sense, an agent of the State, but;$t is also clearly very true that he Is an appointee of the State, acting through its Board of Regents. . . . a a "It is very clear, therefore, that Mr. Hayes, so long gs he is Lieutenant Governor, could not under the Constitution draw pay from the State, as (1) agent, (2) officer, (3) appointee of the State. “As we have above endeavored to show that a professor in the University of Texas is an appointee, or in a limited sense an agent, therefore, Mr. Hayes could not draw,a salary from the State as Professor in Journalism in the University. "The converse of the above ~proposition is also true, and, therefore, Mr. Hayes, so long as he was the agent or appointee of the State as ti Professor of Journalism in the University could not drew his pay as Lieutenant Governor or the State that being an office wlthln the meaning of the ConzUtution. "Therefore, should Mr. Mayes accept the posi- tion of Professor of Journalism In the Unlveralty and at the same time hold ahd exercise the duties of the office of Lieutenant Governor, he could not draw pay for either such office or such position." (Opinion of Sept. 22, 1913). It remains only to be seen whether or not the University professor, while serving as teacher in the Austin Public Schools, holds a position of honor, trust or profit under this State. Clearly, as such teacher In the Public Schools of Austin, for reasons stated in our quotations from the Governor Mayes Opinion, he would not hold an office. It is equally clear, ho+ ever, that while In the employ of the City of Austin as teacher in Its Public Schools he would hold a position of honor, trzsf or profit under this State. The whole scheme and system of public education in Texas, from the humblest district to the University of the State, Is controlled by the laws of the State so that every office or position of honor, trust or profit whatsoever held in any of such schools is "under the laws of this State". Lewis v. Independent School District of Austin, 139 Tex. 83, 161 S.W. (2a) 450; rupug Eon. C. B. Cavness, page 3 ,,,.: ‘I’V-325 v. State, 125 Tex. Grim. 595, 121 S .W. (26) 1003. In Opinion lo. O-4433, rendered in 1942, this Depart- ment advised Honorable Clifford B. Jones, President, Texas Technological College, that the regular teachers of the Public School System of Iubbock who Instructed and supervised the students of Texas Technological College In their practice teach- ing courses could not be paid Sor their services 80 rendered under Section 33 OS Article XVI of the Constitution, because such public school teachers at the time of rendering such aer- vice to the college held “posltlons of honor, trust and profit under the laws of this State.” It could make no difference in our answer to your ques- tlon that the teacher In the Austin Public Schools was e part- time rather than a full-time teacher. His services would be in virtue of a position of honor, trust or profit regardless of the hours of the day, or the daya of the week of the teaching, so long as It has the element o? continuity under the terms of the employment. (See this Department’s Oplnlon lio. O-4902 herewith). You are therefore advlsed that a professor In the Unl- varsity of Texas, either full tine or part time, may not be paid through varrant upon the Treasury for his services If, et the same time he 1s also employed to tee&h, either part time or full time in the Austin Public Schools. A professor In The University of Texas, whether full time or part time, nmy not be pald his salary from the Treasury for his services if at the same time he Is employed as a teacher in the Public Schools of the City of Austin. Const. of Ten. Art. XVI, Sec. 33. Yours very truly, ATTORNEYGWERAL OFTRXA3 OS:wb :uc By s/Ocie Speer Ocie Speer APPROVED : Assistant s/Joe R. Greenhill ACTING A’ITORRBY QWRRAL