Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICIP, OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Gentlc%Wn1 Atittwnttimi ?L If.R atlon is r1naooed by no travel %rp%nsa for t t?m qmst:on OS this Da- paxtmnt upon 8 %xa%ss mxlep ltl ravel ojhiohis a This'appro?riatlonis heeded *EIoordof EWners Dlvlolon ( da out 0s witi* ~FXX~)*, and followlnq the ap~mpria- tE on them appears thw following:mragmph: "?ubjoot to the linltatlozls set forth in the provisl.ons appearing at State Cepartmnt or lXucatlon, Q-qy 2 the er.dof this Act, nll balances zow on hand a~ciall current Sees collect& 2. xz applicants Sor teacha-Is ccrtSf~- oates aye hereby appmp5atod for the purpose of puyirzf;all of the calories ima expsiscs of this Division, ds its* Izod, far I.316fiscal ynaro ~erJdinq ku- gust 31, 1940, nnd ktqlK& 31, l%zl.'? In a~:swerto your sccor~Zcuestioz, r;ouare n&is- cd that it is the op,fnlono-Pt?&s 3snsx-trttnent that the Litai- tations of'?rqzects Cosrd hm 30 jurlodlotionover tho mra of ?kmi9er3 sms. eich exceed me azoulitnecessary to gap the itens specificaLlyap,nro?rlztteC tkemfrom by the Yd?JgiSLdmx3.';!rticlo w79, tiEFrised ::ivil,z';tutes, provides that applicants for teauhe+s cer+,lficSas still submit srlth +:!,0if a9plicstio.q to tEe :3at.o5x35 of ',2,rar,inors n See OS "3x3Dol3.ers(32.00)) muI nrticlc X3316 povldes thnt n per- sin hold&T a tczc%r'fl certificatemay have the sme re- PVred upon t.kwpo,ymnt Od * the See of One 30110* IQl.OO), wder certain o1ro?133taSoes, aoci Article 2099a aiso povid- es ior Sees for special Ytldemr&&ncy oertl%lcates,but in aon& of these ~WAcles of the statute do wa find any lan- gusge indichtisg an intention on the p?-tiOS 0% Lea&a- ture to dedfoete or devote the fees to the USC and bomfit of the State Depurtnect OS E;Bucatlonor the Board of Xxm~- inars Div~laionthorcos* for the ;)u~p3e OS CeSrn-Jluq ne- Oessary e~3en,~e3 0f it3 i2a~mi3t~Otfb~. In b\ir.ODinLOn x0. O-1437, ac%drcssedto the 3xoreblo C. I..Kuykendail,Chair- mm of the 30x7: OS Exsainers, uudor C&e OS October 13, 1933, findmitten by Assi.stant AttoYncy GeneTo Cecil C. Camack, this Dapa?taeM. held t&t the Cozqtrolleris not nuthorizedor'rer,ulred to deposit tke fees coilectcd by the 3ocir(? of Xcmimrs Division of tho lk,part.zeer;t f2 a sAy30ial Suna,~butthat such Sees shonld be deposited in the Eerier- al revenue luM. Aud 13 our Conference Opinion Ko. 3082, coustxuiq the llxitation af pamento clause of Senate Bill 427, Regular Session, forty-oixth~iegislature,YEIheld as sollow: . . I State.Deprt33nt of $ducotfon, Page S *‘AnsPsering your second qu0stfon 5ge- cificallg, tk,ereime, ve are of the opin- Ton that the hut;hority or the Board relatea only to theme surplusa exietlng in funds dedianted OT devoted to the uses of a par- tiouler depsrtmnt, where en appropriation of such mr@?s in such dedioatcd funas to the pnrt~culor'departn~nt .is not to be found ~,iswi~e.~e than in'tte I&aLtotionof Peyztentr; Clause.* SInac the statutes $m-viding for t&e aoUvM.on of rees by the 3oerd of Ex&zzilnlnors Dlvfsfoz of the Stafie Board of Eduwtion do.:~-notdkdfcnte or devote those fees to the use and.ben&Yt of that departmerit of tke Stats Govtxmmit, the Lhltation of ?ay.ments Board has no ,Wrio-. diction OYCT azy ctipposedexcesa~or surplus~ existing there- in. APPROW OCT. 30, 1939 .'