:. ..:...: 

.::;I: 

.-::; ,::., 

Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard Opinion No. O-6705 

Rea Construction of S.B. 3l7 eud H.B. 

Dear .Ikr. Shepparda 

Bog 173 departmental appropriation 

bill en& higher. instltutlons of leerning appropriation bill, respectively, 

49th Legislature, concerning the 

pl.oyPlent of husband aud wife. 

em-- 

You request au opinion frolp th5.s Department in 

lowing letter: 

the fol- 

“1 shall thank you to exaadne Subsection 19 of 

Section 2 OS Senate Bill Ho* 317, Acts of the Begular Session of the 49th Legislature knowa., as, the 

Departmental AppxopriatUn Bill en&adviiie this depart~nt wlqther it 1s p ermissdle ,,SQ~ a hnsbmd and 

wiSe ‘.to ybr+ Sk the State’ oa ‘aid &S&or &i~tember 1 

of fhla years 

Tt is Surther prodded that the Sawgoing provisions restrlctlng emploolleent of both %usband and 

wfie shall not epply to any~persims who .wexe empleyed 

and recelv%ng .compensatlon i”rou the ‘State at any time 

durw t&e month of Jatmsry, l&l*,’ 

YChls ‘exception is not carried forwd in ‘the Departmeutal Qpropriation Mll .$Or the ensulng bfenn%um. 

,. 

“Wee have a fact sftuation ,as SoZlowsz A men aud 

MS tife haye been, workbwfor the Gtate. in diSSerent 

departments for a, long number of yeam. .%!helr..emplgymmt, has been aorttlmouer, They each desire to qontinue work Soti the State after Septexbti 

desire of the departuer& heads to Isee 

aadit 3.s. the 

$bum Sn the* 

present posItions, WIU it lmpossib e Sor both ,of 

these 

WhlCh % 

eople to ,contlnus ww9.c for the departments In 

ey ore now employed on and after September 1 

of this pearl 

“You -wU.l noblie that Subset&ton 28 OS SeotiOn 2 

of the Act fixing the .appropriatlon Sor educational institutlous for higher learning for the enSPing blenaima 

has to do with emtiloyment of husband aud wiSe for the 

various ~educatlonal institution&’ W22.l it fmke atly 

difference whethsr the husband or Wl.Se in either instance 

iw worklug for a: aepartmsnt or for au fnstitutfon of 
Hon. George H. Sheppard, page 2. 

higher. ~1earnUg as far as Me or her employment Is 

concerned aft&-September 1 of this year? 

'1 find no restriction against the employment oS 

husbaud and wife In the Appro 

port an8 maintenance of the e P 

riation Bill for t@e supfor the ensuing blennlum. 

eemosynary institutions 

Would It be penaisslble for 

on8 spouse to work for a State department and the other 

to work for the eleemosynary lnstltutlons?4~ 

.'For convenlapce sake we have nmbersd the paragraphs of 

Litter, sttilng t&e respective qtiestlons propounded by you. 

Su~s&tloq 19 of_Ssstlon 2 of Senate Bill 110~ 3l7, insofar as“pertln&t, Is as followsi 

tit,~tbgiijibq:~lth $h&napPe of the depar&uent where'gudh 

spouse is e@.@yed, ,qnd if such reXationshSp employment 

does pot exScrt; ‘then sald’,sSSidaVlt shall so &ate and 

the head of’$he .&~~m&nt, ,and thi St&& Comptroker 

shall wt approve POP pa$m@S or issue wanants or checks 

for salarlw td ..6lther. the lzusbnd or wffe nowhere both 

said ~~bsha”&+~‘i@% atd~ empUred in the departments 

~f&ps~f3$0 *jeet,~ however, to the f$.l.owI.ug provl- 

. 

‘khk prov&zloi&q Jmreln shek’a piy 

heads ~and’leempbercl of CelamtssiOns b ut 

to department 

and laatr@ of W ~001~ Nate Paz%. 

not to the manager 

We word * departme& 9 

‘as used herein ehr$L;mean theas departw3nts napled in %hIa 

Act and f&6 S&l Coars&vatIon Board and shall not agpl.y 

to &her a&w&x.of We State and the employee0 employ-~ 

ed ther,eby.* 

Subseation 18 of the general provisions of House BIU 

173, Insof* as pertinent, ii3 as followsr 

- wId is provided that none of the funds appropriated 

here-~ sh&lX be pa&d to a husband and wife both &f whom 

are employed by any of the several Institukons named 

herein. * 
-2 

Hone George H. Sheppard, page 30 

We find no exceptions ta either of these respective provisions comparable t6 the one quoted by you from the current departmental approprfation act. 

The,se prohibitory provisions are plain and unambiguous. 

It is our opinion that your questions should be answered, 

respectively, as iollows: - 

husband and'Gife--to continue to work Sor'the departments ln whi& 

It will be impossible for both of these people--, 

they are employed or any other cf the departments provided for ln 

S8nat8Bill For 317. 

The clear meaning of the respective riders 1s that 

husband and2;lfe may net both be employees of any of the State department~s at the same time, and likewise they may not both be employees of any ~of the higher educational. Institutions at the sums 

time, There is nothlng, however forbidding their being emploped, 

respeutlvely, by a department 8nA an educational lustltutlon at 

the Sam8 time. 

3. It would be permissible for one spouse to workas axi 

.empi.oyee for a Stat 8 department’ and the other tom work as an 'J@6ry 

88 for ti eleemosyi3@ry institutlim, or en educational lm3tltU$L0nj 

as given ln our answer to question No. 2. , 

_.. ,...~ _..__ c:.,.: .+:‘“!m;~:,+&mer . f.0 pnasMan ?& ls .&~$*&.~&+J&~~:iip(i@f.&&~ 

tlon;. Subsection (II> of the general provisions contained @i Xas8 

Bl.Il No. 173, fixlug appropriations for educatlonti& instit%ltiOW3 

of higher learning, expresdy. provides a 

, . 

“The gene~ral. provisions mad8 ln this Act shall 

not apply to athletic br extremurel d8,pmtUIOX3tSt 

and as, to these ~exceptlons, the governing board shaU 

make such necessary rules and adjustments as may be 

deemed advisable. * I 

This exception would apply to the general provision of 

subS8CtiOp (18) ooncernl.zg the employment of husband and wm. 

APFROVED JUL. 24, 1945 

/s/ Carlos C. AsiAey 

v8X.y tl’X&.youZ%i 

A!rToRNEy’GswBRAL OF S!BXiS 

FIR@’ &SSISl!AMT ATTORNEY GEIWUL By /s/ O~le~Speer 

APPROVED: OPINION COlMCTpEE Ocle Speer, Assistant 

BYt BWB, CKJURMU? 

OS-Miawb 

..---v--