Honorable Louis Dugas Jr.

Chairman, Contlngent Expense Committee House of Representatives Austin, Texas Opinion NO.V/W-148 Re:

Dear Mr. Dugas: Dothe provlslons ofHouse Simple Resolution No. 516, andHouse Simple Resolution No. 522 of the 55th Legislature, affect the opinion of the Attorney General as to the constitutionality of House Simple Resolution No. 284 of the 55th Legislature as expressed in Attorney General’s Opinion W-131.

This opinion Is In response to your letter of May23, 1957, In which you make the following statement:

“In view of your recent opinion, No. W-131 regarding the constitutionality of House Simple Resolution No. 284, the Members of the Contengent Expense Committee respectfully request an offlclal opinion of the above resolution in conjunction with the two added resolutions, H.S.R. No. 516and H.S.R. No. 522, which have just been passed.” House Simple Resolution No. 51.6reads as follows: “BEIT RESOLVEDby the Texas House ofRepresentatives, That the words ‘official telephone calls’ as used In House Simple Resolution No. 284 shall be construed to mean only those calls which are made,necessary by the fact that the person making such call 1s a Member of the House ofRepresentatives, and which such Memberdeems necessary to the proper carrying out of his duties as aMemberof the House of Representatives; and, be It furtherHonorable Louis Dugas, Jr., page 2 (NW-148)

“RESOLVED,that noMember

### ofthe House of Representatives shall be deprived of the right to use his official to31 credit 

### telephone card, except by ama,lorlty vote of Contingent Expense Committee. ihe Uembere of the i

House Simple Resolution No. 522 reada a8 follows: “BEITRESOLVEDby the Texas House of Representatives, That the use of telephones for, official calls, as prescribed by HSRNo. 284, Is declared to be in the public interest, and to be necessary to the proper conduct of the business of the House of Representatives during the interim." House Slmple Resolution No. 284 reads as follows: "BEITRESOLVEDby the Texas House of Representatives, That the Committee onContingent Expense be directed to appropriate from the Contingent Expense Fund whatever sums shall be necessary to pay for official telephone calls by Members of the House of Representatives during the Interim, beginning immediately following sine die adjournment of the Fifty-fifth Legislature-and ending at the convening of the Flftysixth Legislature. It Is provided, however, 

### that no Membershall be allowed more than Twelve Dollars ($12) monthly for telephone calls, and it Is further provided that notelephone expense other than officials calls which are properly charged to the Member's official toll credit cards shall be paid by the Committee. TheContingent Expense Committee shall makeany necessary rules or regulations concerning ,lnterlm telephone calls of Members and shall have full authority to enforce such rules in whatever uanner they deem necessary or advisable." 'Attorney General's Oplnlon No.NW-131 (1957) 

### In holding.that House Simple Resolution No. 284 

### of the 55th Legislature is.unconstltutlonal and an unlawful use of State Funds, cites Attorney General's Opinion No. MS-43 (1953) and’ Attorney General's Opinion No. 0-3778 (1941). These opinions conclude that the expenses Incurred as aresult of the actlvltles of 

### kheLeglslatye mayproperly be dlv!ded into two categories, Legislative and 'Personal

.-_ -

,

Honorable Louis Dugas, jr,, page 3 (WW-148)

Attorney General’s Opinion No. O-3778 (1941) 

### defines these categories as 

### follows;

“It Is beliaved that the matter ofLegislative and personal expense maybe rationalized as follows. Legislative expense Is that Incident to the workings of the Legislature as an actual law-making ~body, as awhole, as the Legislature Itself, when in session; through a special committee delegated by the Legislature while In session to work on alegislative matter between sessions; through personnel employed to close matters after adjournment; or through employees maintained between sessions for the care of the legislative halls or for maintenance of acentral office or clearing house for legislative matters between sessions. These expenses are for the mutual benefit of all members -- for the Leglslature itself. Versonal expense, onthe other hand, Is that incurred, or which maybe Incurred, by a Memberbetween sessions working under his own will, In his owndiscretion and as amatter of lndIvldual enterprise -- not as apart of the Legislature In session or under extraordinary assignment from the body between sessions.

“If, therefore, an allowance of expenses to individual members of the Legislature during a session, orwhile ona committee assignment between sessions, Is presumptively leglslatlve expense, It does not follow that an expense allowance to each member lndlscrfmlnately between sessions Is likewise so. Tothe contrary, In our opinion the latter Is presumptively personal ex-’ pense.

‘%sentlally this view Is grounded upon the historical and constitutional concept of a State legislative office, together with the practical workings ofthe constitutional methods with reference thereto, and the discernible weight 

### ofthe cases In support of such conclusion.” It Is our opinion that the above quoted portions of Attorney General’s Opinion No. O-3778 (1941) correctly state the law regarding this matter. It Is that the inclusion of the statement, I therefore, our opinion tlon NO.516, romHouse Slmple Resolu-Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., page 4 (W-148)

‘1.

. .That the words ‘official telephone calls’ as used in House Simple Resolution No. 284shall be construed to mean only those calls which are madenecessary by the fact that the person making such call 1s aMember of the House ofRepresentatives, andwhich such Memberdeems necessary to the proper carrying out of his duties as aMember of the House of Representatives;

. . .I’ and.the statement from House Simple Resolution No. 522,

‘1.

. .That the use of telephones for official calls, as prescribed by HSRNo. 284, 1s declared to be in the public interest, and to be necessary to the proper conduct of the business of the House of Representatives during the Interim.” donot in any way alter our opinion concerning the constitutlonality of House Simple Resolution No. 284 of the 55th Leglslature. If the expense does not occur under such circumstances as to comewithin the definition of llleglslatlvs” expense, as that term is defined above, then webelieve that the additional resolutions as contained ln House Simple Resolution No. 516 and House Simple Resolution No. 522 can not change the status of the expense, and that the payment of the expense would be an unlawful use of State Funds.

The provisions of House Slm?le Resolution No. 516 andHouse Simple Resolution No. 522ofthe 55th Legislature, when construed in csnjunctlon with the provisions o.fHouse Simple Resolution No. 284 of the 55th Legislature, donot in .myway vary the opinion of the Attorney General ASto the constitutionality of House Simple Resolu;lon No. 284, 3s expressed In Attorney General’s Opinion No. WW-131 0957) g Yours 7ery truly, WILLWILSON Attorney General of Texas

iGR:2f~:it:wb AssistantHonorable Louis Dugas, Jr., page 5 (Uw148)

APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE H. Grady Chandler, Chairman Will Davis Robert 0. Smith EdCazares REVIEWEDFORTHEATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Geo. P. Blackburn