576
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNN GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eon/C. S. Clar'h, Chairman
Board of Kater Engineera
Austin, Texas
Ijeer Sir:
Semite Bill $27
Regular Seesion, provid
departmnt, aszonk, other
%aintenenae and l(isce1
0 salatenanoe. ...
eetigetions and sta-
s in coocarction with
. . $25,ooo,oo.~
of the a~otmt oft c;oney itenised harein for ~said.
purpose. This provision sh6ll be applicable
whether t&e' item for traveling expenses is to
bye pa'%d out of the ap?ropriction fro:1 the Csnersl
Fund, froix fees, receipt6 or speo-lsl ~funds col-
lect.ed by virtue of certain lesvs of LkRn State,
577
ffonr C. 5. Clark, Fage 2.
or frQm. other. funds (exclusive of $eder&’ funds)
available for use by a.depertment.W
Concerningthis rider, in our conference opinion
~lo. 3032, w5 -made the goner51 observation that, since the
Prohibitioniw5e clear and explicit, it needed no construe-.
tion and effectively, prohibited the expenditure oft funds’
for’traveling expenses by a depaartment in exaess of ‘the
B=ount itemized for that purpose.
Referring’ to the above matter, you request the
opfnion~ of this department upon the question whether ‘.tr%vel-
lag :exp.enses neoeasery to ~accomplish the purposes for which
itemcae3 end 4, above quoted, were :provided by the Legisla-
turo, ‘my be p&d out of such respective items.
The rule governing the matter is clear. arid is
05 stated in the provision of the rider above quoted. It
io. the application of the mile which gives rise to difSi-
oulty, for, having stated the rule, it is necessary, in
wderto ,apply it, to deter-mine the following question:
What~~itema provided by the Legislature
for expendit~ure by a particular department were
intended by the Legislature to include travel-
ing exp8nses?st
In a reoent. conference opinion rendered by this.
department, it was held that, where a department or division
Of e degortment ~5s provided with no speciio’item for
“tr5vellng expenses,” but was provided with au item for
“contingent expenses,” .it was the 15gislatlve intent that
euoh item.should include provision ~for necessary traveling
expanses of the department or divi eion of 5 department.
(Conrerence opinion No, 30S9).
Your question’ eerves but to emphasize the truism
t33t, in ordor .to apply any sule of law, it is first neo-
eJs5ry to determine the facts.
It ia apparent that, in providing items 3 end 4,
nf yollr approprietion nbove quoted, it wss.‘the legislative
:atgt that. the pum of noney provldad for the accoonplisb
ZQnt of the respootive objects should ba qvoilable fork
erPt%lditwe, to defray 511 items of expanse neoeseery~to b-e
can. C. .S. Clark, pSg.e 3.
;3c~~rred in- oonneotion with the accom~li6hment o,f such ob jecte.
T, otber Pords, Sor the purpose oS osrrying cut the Sunc,tions
s your doyrrrtment grncrelly, excluding the purpones for
+.fch Items 3 land 4 were-provlde.d, the Legislature appro-
;:ihted specific items; but for the purpose of defraying
*II costs and expenoe incident to the performanoe of two
r;ilrate and distinot iunctions or dutie6. of gone depart-
SQnt, tb6. Legislature provided two separate and distinct
i63p SUP eppro~riations.
The itoa for “traveling expeuzea . . . $2,‘6OO,OO,v
therefore, 15 not available to defray traveling expenses
f.?cldent to the performanoe of the purposes set out in
lim3 3 6~nd4, and, :conversely, items 3~and 4 ares not ovall-
able to defray expenses incident to the perfomnce of
t>sremaining Sunotions of your department. It Sollows
t.hnt the appropriation for ita 3 is aveilabla for all
8xpense8, including traveling expenses, nscesoerily incurred
by your department in the aooompliahment of the FJrpoae for
%>lch euch item ie provided but fox no other ex.penses of
tte departnent: Likewise, item 4 is available for all
expc.nees, including traveling expenses, necesssrily incurred
fn the 6coonpli6hment of the purpose for vrhioh such ~item is
fxovided, but for no other expense of ‘the department.
Youra very truly
ATTOR!ZlWGIXZRALOF TIXA3
&&LA<
m
R.. W, Feirohild
Assistant
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion