Honorable Louis Dugas Jr. 

Chairman, Contlngent Expense Committee 

House of Representatives 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion NO. V/W-148 

Re: 

Dear Mr. Dugas: 

Do the provlslons of House Simple 

Resolution No. 516, and House 

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 May 23, 

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. 

516 and H.S.R. No. 522, which have just been 

passed.” 

House Simple Resolution No. 51.6 reads as follows: 

“BE IT RESOLVED by the Texas House of Representatives, 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 of Representatives, and which such Member deems necessary to the proper carrying out of his duties as 

a Member of the House of Representatives; and, 

be It further 
Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., page 2 (NW-148) 

“RESOLVED, that no Member of the House of 

Representatives shall be deprived of the right 

to use his official to31 credit telephone card, 

except by a ma,lorlty vote of 

Contingent Expense Committee. 

ihe Uembere of the i 

House Simple Resolution No. 522 reada a8 follows: 

“BE IT RESOLVED by the Texas House of Representatives, That the use of telephones for, 

official calls, as prescribed by HSR No. 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: 

"BE IT RESOLVED by the Texas House of Representatives, That the Committee on Contingent 

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 Member shall be allowed more than Twelve Dollars ($12) monthly for telephone calls, and it Is 

further provided that no telephone expense other 

than officials calls which are properly charged 

to the Member's official toll credit cards shall 

be paid by the Committee. The Contingent Expense 

Committee shall make any 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 a result of the actlvltles of khe Leglslatye may properly 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 of Legislative and personal expense may be rationalized as 

follows. Legislative expense Is that Incident 

to the workings of the Legislature as an actual 

law-making ~body, as a whole, as the Legislature 

Itself, when in session; through a special committee delegated by the Legislature while In 

session to work on a legislative 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 a central 

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, on the other hand, Is 

that incurred, or which may be Incurred, by a 

Member between sessions working under his own 

will, In his own discretion and as a matter of 

lndIvldual enterprise -- not as a part 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, or while on a 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. To the 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 of the constitutional methods with reference thereto, and the discernible weight of the 

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, 

rom House Slmple Resolu- 
Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., page 4 (W-148) 

‘1. . . 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 of Representatives, and which such Member deems necessary to 

the proper carrying out of his duties as a Member 

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 HSR No. 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.” 

do not 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 come within the definition of llleglslatlvs” expense, as 

that term is defined above, then we believe 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 and House Simple Resolution No. 522 of the 55th 

Legislature, when construed in csnjunctlon with the 

provisions o.f House Simple Resolution No. 284 of 

the 55th Legislature, do not in .my way vary the 

opinion of the Attorney General AS to the constitutionality of House Simple Resolu;lon No. 284, 3s 

expressed In Attorney General’s Opinion No. WW-131 

0957) g 

Yours 7ery truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

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

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

Will Davis 

Robert 0. Smith 

Ed Cazares 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Geo. P. Blackburn