### KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEX.AS
September28, 2015

The Texas Constitution and sections 402.042 and 402.043 ofthe Government Code irant the attorney general authority to issue attorney general opinions. An attorney general opinion is a written interpretation of existing law. The development of an attorney general opinion is an involved andthoroughprocess involvingmanylayers ofcomprehensivereview. Attorney general opinions do not necessarily reflect the attorney general's personal views, nor does the attorney general in any way "rule" on what the law should say. As have those that have come before it, this administration strives to craft opinions with the greatest level oflegal accuracy and without anyhint ofimpropriety. By its very nature, the. attorney general opinion process invites a variety oflegal issues to be brought before our office for analysis and review. The questions asked are outside the scope of this office's control, and some ofthe questions to be addressed may raise actual or perceived conflicts ofinterest"for the Attorney General and his staff. Consistentwith applicable statutes and rules, staffmembersinvolvedinthe opinionprocessmustrecusethemselves frommattersinwhich there may exist an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Accordingly, pursuant to section

.402.001 ofthe Government Code, I delegatemy signature authorityinthe attorneygeneral opinion process to theFirstAssistantAttorney General, Charles E. Roy, for those opinions inwhichI may have an actual or perceived conflict of interest or in which my involvement gives even the appearance ofimpropriety. Any such opinion signed bythe First Assistant under this delegation carries the full force ofan attorney general opinion. Verytruly yours,

# ~?~ KEN PAXTON Attorney General ofTexasDecember 21, 2015

The Honorable Glenn Regar Texas Comptroller ofPublic Accounts Post Office Box 13528 Austin, Texas 78711-3528

Dear Comptroller Regar:

In the process of reviewing this matter, this office concludes there could be an actual or perceived conflict of interest such that the Attorney General has recused himself from any participation onthe matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code section 402.001 and the authority delegation issued by the Attorney General on September 28, 2015, the First Assistant Attorney General will sign this opinion. Any such recusal is intended to go beyond the letter and spirit ofthe governing law and rules in order to avoid even the appearance ofimpropriety and to demonstrate our ongoing commitmentto the highest ethical standards.

Charles E. Roy First Assistant Attorney General CER:llyThe Honorable Glenn Regar Texas Comptroller ofPublic Accounts Post Office Box 13528 Austin? Texas 78711-3528
Dear Comptroller Regar: December 21, 2015

OpinionNo. KP-0048

Re: Effect ofthe Governor's vetoes of the General Appropriations Act (RQ-0047-KP)

. You ask for an opinion "onthe effect ofcertain parts ofthe Governor's veto proclamation for House Bill 1, the General Appropriations Act," enacted during the Eighty-fourth Legislature. 1 Request Letter at 1. Article 4, section 14 ofthe Texas Constitution authorizes the Governor to veto items ofappropriation:
If any bill presented to the Governor contains several items of appropriation he may object to one or more of such items, and approve the other portion ofthe bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, atthe time ofsigning it, a statement ofthe items to which he objects, and no item so objected to shall take effect.
TEX. CONST. art. IV,§ 14.
The Texas Supreme Court has twice taken the opportunity to construe this provision. In Fulmore v. Lane, 140 S.W. 405 (Tex. 1911), the Court addressed the Thirty-second Legislature's appropriations bill, wherein it appropriated to the Attorney General's department "the sum of eighty-threethousand and one hundred and sixty ($83, 160) dollars, to be expended during the two fiscal years ending August 31, 1912, and August 31, 1913." Id at 407. Below this general statement in the appropriations bill, the sum of $83,160 was divided and placed in separate columns, "one for $41,580 available for the year ending August 31, 1912, and a like sum for the year ending August 31, 1913." Id. at 410. In his veto message, the Governor "vetoed the lump
sum of $83,160 appropriated to the Attorney General's department" and further explained that "[b]ystriking outthe lump appropriation and the words describingthe same, andthe appropriation of $41,580 for the second year, the sum of $41,580 is left subject to the use ofthe Attorney General[.]" Id. at 408. Contrary to the argument that the Legislature made only one item of appropriation in the sum of$83,160, the Court held that "there were two items ofappropriation

1Letter from Honorable Glenn Hegar, Tex. Comptroller ofPub. Accounts, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Aug. 26, 2015), https://www.texasattomeygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs (hereinafter "Request Letter"); see General Appropriations Act, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 1281, § 1, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 4343 (hereinafterthe "Act"); Veto Message ofGov. Abbott, Tex. H.B. 1, 84th Leg., R.S. (2015) (located at 2015 Tex

..Gen. Laws 5298-5307) (hereinafter "Proclamation").The Honorable Glenn Regar

- Page 2 (KP-0048)

for the Attorney General's department." 

### Id. at 411. Thus, the Governor lawfully vetoed the appropriation for the second year but "left available the item of$41,580 appropriated for the first fiscal year." 

### Id. With regard to the Governor's striking ofthe lump sum of$83,160, the Court explained that such clause "was surplusage and its elimination in no manner affected either ofthe two items ofappropriation." 

### Id.
InJessenAssociates v. Bullock, 531S.W.2d593 (Tex. 1975) (orig. proceeding), the Court**address~d** the Governor's attempt to veto a rider to the appropriations bill that authorized the construction ofcertain enumerated projects by the Board ofRegents ofthe University ofTexas System. 

### Id at 596-97. In analyzing whether the specific rider in question was an "item of appropriation" and thereby subject to the Governor's veto, the Court explained that "if the provision which the Governor attempted to veto

. . . is merely language qualifying an appropriation, or directing its uses, then the veto is ofno effect." 

### Id. at 598. On the other hand, "[w]here a certain provision designates a specified purpose and the amount to be used theref9r, it is an item ofappropriation even though it may be included in a larger, more general item." 

### Id. at 599. Concludingthatthe rider didnot itselfset aside any funds, the Court held that the "Governor

... exceeded the power granted to him

...in attempting to veto the rider." 

### Id. at 600.
While the Court in Jessen concluded that the particular rider in question was not an appropriation, opinions from prior attorneys general have emphasized that riders are not immune from the Governor's veto ifthey include "items ofappropriation." See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 0-3685 (1941) at 3 ("arider ofthis type constitutes an item ofappropriation

... and is subject to the veto power ofthe ChiefExecutive"). "The Governor has no authority to veto a rider in an appropriationbill unless it is in itselfan item ofappropriation." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. M-1199 (1972) at2 (emphasis added). "Noparticularform, ormethod, orverbiage, is requiredto constitute
an item ofappropriation." Tex. Att'y Gen Op. No. 0-3685 (1941) at 2. Itis withthese authorities and principles inmind that we consider your specific questions concerning the Governor's vetoes ofthe Eighty-fourth Legislature's General Appropriations Act.
I. Texas Facilities Commission

Your first and second sets ofquestions concern the Governor's veto ofprovisions in the Act relating to certain funds for the Facilities Commission. Request Letter at 5-7. In particular, for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2016, the Act allocates to the Facilities Commission $983,665,000 for construction of buildings and facilities, listing seven specific projects and a corresponding amount for each. See Act, art. I-42 at 4397. The Governor struck three ofthose projects andtheir corresponding amounts from the Act: $132,000,000 for the G. J. SuttonBuilding Replacement, $26,000,000 for the Elias Ramirez State Office Building

- New Parking Garage, and $57,995,000 for acquisition andrelocation oftheDepartmentofMotorVehicles Headquarters. Proclamationat 5300-01; Act, arts. I-41 & I-42 at4396-97 (3.e.(5)-(7)). TheAct states thatthese amounts "shallbe expended only for the purposes shown and are not available for expenditure for otherpurposes." Act, art. I-41at4396 (3.). These three allocations therefore set aside funds for a specifiedpurpose and are items ofappropriation. SeeJessen, 531 S.W.2d at 599. The Governor's veto ofsaid items results inthose funds not being appropriated to the Facilities Commission. See TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 14 ("no item so objectedto shall take effect").The Honorable Glenn Regar

- Page 3 (KP-0048)

·The Legislature did not allocate separate funds for these projects for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2017; however, the Act includes, and the Governor struck, the unexpended balance appropriationfor eachoftheseprojects.2 Act, art. I-42 at4397 (4.); Proclamationat5301. Because the Governor's veto nullifies the appropriations for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2016, no unexpended balances ofthe appropriations would occur for the following fiscal year, and the Governor's striking ofthese appropriations is likely an acknowledgment ofthat fact. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-51 (1979) at 6 (concluding that two provisions appropriating unspent balances were items ofappropriation subject to the Governor's veto).
As you note, these specific items ofappropriation vetoed by the Governor were included
as part oflarger sums allocated earlier in the Act. See Request Letter at 6. The Texas Supreme Court explained inJessen that "[ w]here a certainprovision designates a specifiedpurpose and the amount to be used therefor, it is an item ofappropriation even though it may be included in a larger, more general item." Jessen, 531 S.W.2d at 599. The Act allocates $1,288,649,445 to the Facilities Commission. Act, art. I-39 at 4394. The Act then divides this sum into four "Goals," which each include one or more "Strategies." Id. Goal A addresses "Facilities Construction and Leasing," and Strategy A.2.1. allocates $988,291,706 for Facilities Design and Construction. Id. Youquestionwhetherthat Strategy shouldbereducedbythe amountofthe vetoed appropriations. Request Letter at 6. Language in the Act indicates that at least two ofthe amounts vetoed were included in the previously articulated Strategy A.2.1. Act, art. I-46 at 4401 (20., 22.) (stating that includedinthe amounts appropriatedin StrategyA.2.1 werethe appropriations for the Department ofMotorVehicles Headquarters andthe G.J. SuttonBuildingReplacement). Andboththe amount offunds allocatedto StrategyA.2.1 andthe Strategy's statedpurposeindicatethatitlikelyincludes the specific funds appropriated for the three projects that were vetoed by the Governor. 3 Act, art. I-39 at4394. Regardless ofwhich Strategythe Legislature intended for the specific appropriations at issue, however, the effect of the Governor's veto is to reduce by $215,995,000 the funds appropriated to the Facilities Commissionbythe Act.
With regard to vetoes, the Governor's "authority is purely negative." Fulmore, 140 S.W. at 412. An effective veto nullifies the setting aside ofan amount offunds for a specific purpose. Ifadditional funds apart from what was vetoed by the Governor are available, and if authority outside ofthe veto permits expenditure ofthose funds for a given purpose, an agency is likely authorized to spend its other funds accordingly. In this particular instance, however, the Act provides that the funds appropriated to the Facilities Commission for capital budget items "shall be expended only for the purposes shown." Act, art. I-41at4396 (3.). Becausethe three purposes at issue are now struck from the Act by virtue ofthe Governor's veto, funds appropriated to the

2See Act, art. IX-26 at 5191 (Sec. 6.01) ("A reference in this Act to 'unexpended balance' or 'UB' is a reference to the unobligatedbalance ofan amount appropriated by this Act for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2016, unless another meaning is clearly indicated.").

3The total sum of appropriations for the seven projects listed is $983,665,000, see Act, art. I-42 at 4397 (3 .e.(7)), and Strategy A.2.1. is the only Facilities Commission Strategy that was allocated funds that equal orexceed that amount. Act, art. I-39 at 4394 (A.).The Honorable Glenn Hegar

- Page 4 (KP-0048)

Facilities Commission by the Act for capital budget items may not be used for the three vetoed projects.
You also ask about the Governor's veto ofRiders 20 and 22. See Request Letter at 6. These Riders are duplicative ofthe appropriations vetoed by the Governor for acquisition and relocation ofthe Department ofMotor Vehicles Headquarters and for the G. J. Sutton Building Replacement. See, e.g., Act, art. I-46 at 4401 (20.) ("Included inthe amounts appropriated to the Texas Facilities Commission, in Strategy A.2.1, Facilities Design and Construction, is $57,995,000 inRevenue Bond Proceeds infiscal year 2016 for acquisition andrelocationto a new headquarters space for the Texas Department ofMotor Vehicles[.]"). Upon his decision to veto those items, Riders 20 and 22 became surplusage, and the striking ofthese paragraphs simply reinforces the veto ofthe capital budget items and corresponding reduction offunds disc;:ussed above.
II. Texas Department ofState Health Services

Your third set ofquestions relates to the Governor's veto offunds for the Department of State Health Services ("Department"). Request Letter at 7-8. Under Strategy B.2.3., the Act allocates $127,656,512 for fiscal year 2016 and $127,656,510 for fiscal year 2017, for community mental health crisis services. Act, art. II-48 at 4499 (B.2.3). The Act subsequently provides that "[

o]ut of funds appropriated above in Strategy B.2.3 . . . , the Department

. . . shall allocate $1,743,000 in each fiscal year ofthe 2016-17 biennium in General Revenue to be used onlyfor the purpose ofconducting ajail-basedrestoration ofcompetencypilotprogram." Act, art. II-72 at 4523 (70.) (emphasis added). From this language, the Governor struck "in each fiscal year." Proclamation at 5301.
Similar to the appropriation addressed by the Texas Supreme Court in Fulmore, the clear intent ofthe Act is to setaside $1,7 43,000 for fiscal year 2016 and $1,7 43,000 for fiscal year 2017 to be used solely for ajail-basedrestoration ofcompetencypilotprogram. See Fulmore, 140 S.W. at 407 (addressing an appropriations act stating "there is hereby appropriated the sum ofeightythree thousand and one hundred and sixty ($83,160.00) dollars, to be expended during the two fiscal years endingAugust 31st, 1912, and August 31st, 1913"). The language ofthe Acttherefore sets aside two separate amounts of funds for a specific purpose, or establishes "two items of appropriation." Id. at 410. The Governor vetoed one ofthose items, the effect ofwhich is to reduce the Department's appropriated funds by $1,743,000 for the biennium.
You ask from which fiscal year that amount should be eliminated. Request Letter at 8. The Texas Supreme Court has explained that in determining the effect ofa veto, we review the Governor's veto message as a whole. Fulmore, 140 S.W. at 411. By striking the language "each fiscal year" and explainingthathe intended to veto "one year ofthis appropriation," itis clearthat the Governor intended to spread the $1,743,000 item of appropriation over the biennium. Proclamation at 5301. Thus, the effect ofthe veto is to strike the appropriation for fiscal year 2017, while preserving the fiscal year 2016 appropriation. The Act authorizes any unexpended balance remaining on August 31, 2016, to be "appropriated for the same purposes in fiscal year 2017." Act, art. II-65 at 4516 (39.). Because the Act explains that the funds allocated for this program were included in Strategy B.2.3, a proper accounting would reduce Strategy B.2.3 byThe Honorable Glenn Hegar

- Page 5 (KP-0048)

$1,743,000. Act, art. II-72 at 4523 (70.); Proclamation at 5301. Ifadditional funds apart from the $1,743,000 vetoed by the Governor are available, and if authority outside ofthe veto permits expenditure of those funds for a jail-based restoration of competency pilot program, the Department is likely authorized to spend its other funds accordingly.4


### III. Texas Education Agency

Your fourth set ofquestions asks about the Governor's veto ofthe following provision:

Out offunds appropriated above, the Texas EducationAgency shall allocate funds for the purpose of paying membership fees to the Southern Regional Education Board, estimated to be $193,000 per fiscal year. Act, art. III-18 at 4609 (61.); Proclamation at 5302; Request Letter at 8. This provision sets aside funds

- an estimated $193,000 per fiscal year- for the purpose ofpaying membership fees to a particular organization. The fact that the provision does not articulate a fixed sum does not preclude this from being an item of appropriation. As an opinion from this office previously concluded, a provision "may constitute a sufficient appropriation although it does not name a certain sum or a maximum sum." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 0-3685 (1941) at 2 (opining that an uncertain sum appropriated for salaries, travel and other necessary expenses was an item of appropriation subject to the Governor's veto). Because the provision sets aside funds for a particularpurpose, it constitutes an item ofappropriation, andthe Governor's veto ofthis itemhas the effect ofreducing the agency's lump-sum appropriation by $193,000 each fiscal year.
The provision does not identify from which Strategy the appropriation is derived, so a determination as to which Strategy should be reduced by this veto will need to be made by the Comptroller in consultation with the Texas Education Agency and the Legislative Budget Board. Ifadditional funds apart from the $193,000 per fiscal year vetoed by the Governor are available, and ifauthority outside ofthe veto permits expenditure ofthose funds for membership fees to the SouthernRegional EducationBoard, the Texas EducationAgency is likely authorized to spend its other funds accordingly.


### IV. Texas Water Development Board

Your fifth set ofquestions concerns the Governor's striking offunds allocatedto the Water Development Board. Request Letter at 9. In particular, the Act provides for and the Governor struckthe following provision:
Included in amounts appropriated above in Strategy A.3.1 Water Conservation and Assistance, is $1,000,000 infiscal year 2016 from General Revenue for the purpose of providing grants to water

4Unlike the Governor's veto of the Facilities Commission's capital budget items discussed above, the Governor's veto offunds appropriated to the Department does not itselfimpact the use ofany ofthe Department's other available funds.The Honorable Glenn Regar

- Page 6 (KP-0048) ·

conservation education groups. The Water Development Board shall award the grants through a competitive process, which may require grant applicants to provide private matching funds. Any unexpended balances as ofAugust 31, 2016 in funds appropriated for thispurpose are appropriated for the same purpose in the fiscal yearbeginning September 1, 2016. Act, art. VI-59 at 5030 (20.) (emphasis added); Proclamation at 5303. The clear intent ofthis provision is to set aside $1,000,000 for the purpose ofproviding grants to water conservation education groups. It is therefore an item ofappropriation subject to the Governor's veto. The effect ofthe Governor's veto is to reduce by $1,000,000 the total sum appropriated to the Water Development Board for fiscal year 2016. Because the Governor's veto nullifies the appropriation for the 2016 fiscal year, no unexpended balance of the appropriation will occur during the following year. TheActexplainsthatthefunds allocatedforthese grants wereincludedin Strategy A.3.1, and a proper accounting would thereby reduce Strategy A.3.1 by $1,000,000. Act, art. VI59 at 5030 (20.). If additional funds apart from the $1,000,000 vetoed by the Governor are available, and if authority outside of the veto allows the Board to provide grants to water conservationeducation groups, the Boardis likely authorizedto spend its otherfunds accordingly.
V. State Universities and Colleges

You next ask about the Governor's striking offunds for four state universities and one community college. Request Letter at 9-14. In particular, the Act provides for and the Governor struck the following allocations: (1) $2,500,000 for each fiscal year to the University ofTexas at Austin for identity theft and security; (2) $137,577 for each fiscal year to Texas A&M University for an international law summer course; (3) $1,000,000 for each fiscal year to Tarleton State University for the Center for Anti-Fraud, Waste, and Abuse; (4) $500,000 for each fiscal year to Stephen F. Austin State University forthe Waters ofEast Texas Center; and (5) $100,000 for each fiscal yearto Del Mar College for a maritime museum. Act, art. III-66 at 4657 (C.2.8.); art. III-87 at4678 (C.1.1); art. III-94 at4685 (C.3.2); art. III-131at4722 (C.3.4); art. III-200 at4791 (0.2.1.). Regardless ofwhether the allocations are labeled as informational, Strategies, or riders, if they set aside funds for a specific purpose, they are "items ofappropriation." In each ofthese allocations, the Legislatureprovides for anamount ofmoneyto be set aside for a specificpurpose.5 These five allocations are therefore items ofappropriation. The Governor's vetoes are valid and .reduce each institution's lump-sum appropriation by the corresponding amount struck for each

5See Act, art. IIl-68 at 4659 (9.) ("Amounts appropriated above include $5,000,000 in General Revenue for the 2016-17 bienniumto provideresearch and education in the areas ofidentity management, protection, security, and privacy, and to develop solutions to identity problems for businesses, adults, and children at The Center for Identity at the University ofTexas at Austin."); art. IIl-88 at 4679 (4.) (providing that the funds allocated to Texas A&M University "will be used for the International Summer Course"); art. III-95 at 4686 (6.) (providing that the funds allocatedto Tartleton State University "willbe used for the Centerfor Anti-Fraud, Waste, and Abuse"); art. III-132 at 4723 (4.) (providingthatthe funds allocatedto Stephen F. Austin State University "willbe used for the Waters ofEast Texas Center"); art. III-207 at 4798 (26.) (providing that the funds allocated to Del Mar College "shall be used for a maritime museum").The Honorable Glenn Regar

- Page 7 (KP-0048)

institution. If additional funds apart from those vetoed by the Governor are available, and if authority outside ofthe veto allows the educational institutions to spend funds in the manner provided, the institutions are likely authorized to spend their other funds accordingly.
VI. Texas State Securities Board

Yourfinal setofquestions concerns funds allocatedto the SecuritiesBoard. RequestLetter at 15. The Actprovides, and the Governor struck, the following language:
Amounts appropriated above include $557,352 in fiscal year 2016 and $636,688 infiscal year2017 inGeneral Revenue for thepurpose of employee merit salary increases contingent upon House Bill 2493, cir similar legislation relating to· the classification of the agency as a Self-Directed and Semi-Independent agency, not being enacted. Act, art. VIII-55 at 5148 (3.); Proclamation at 5304. This provision sets aside $557,352 for fiscal year 2016 and $636,688 for fiscal year 2017 for the purpose ofemployee salary increases, and it therefore constitutestwo items ofappropriation subjectto the Governor's veto. The appropriations
were contingent upon House Bill 2493 or similar legislation not being enacted, which ended up being the case. · The Governor's Proclamation ·message in conjunction with this veto states, "[t]his veto deletes a contingent rider for a bill that did not pass." Proclamation at 5304. Briefing submitted to this office on behalf of the Securities Board notes that the Governor vetoed a number of appropriation riders that were contingent on the passage ofother legislation that failed to pass.6 With regard to these other vetoes, the Governor's Proclamation message included the same explanatory statement provided for the veto ofSecurities Board funds. Each ofthe other vetoes, however, had no meaningful effect onthe agency orits appropriations, as the appropriations were contingent on the passage of a bill that failed, so the appropriations would not have become effective regardless ofthe Governor's veto. In this instance, on the other hand, the Securities Board appropriations were contingent on a bill failing, which did occur, so the appropriations would have been effective but for the Governor's veto. The briefing suggests that in every other instance whenthe Governor intendedto affirmativelyveto appropriations, the Governor struckthe appropriations language and included an explanation as to why the veto occurred. Briefat 6-8. While this may be the case, we cannot ignore the clearest intent ofthe Governor's veto, which is his striking ofthe appropriation language and which results in the total sum appropriated to the Securities Boardbeing reduced bythe amounts struck.
The vetoed provision does not state from which ofthe Securities Board Strategies the appropriated funds derive. According to information provided by the Securities Board, however, the Legislative Budget Board has explained how the vetoed funds were apportioned among the Board's Strategies, andthis couldprovide amethodto accountfor thevetoedfunds. See Securities

6SeeLetterfrom BethAnnBlackwood, Chair, Tex. State Securities Bd., to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 3 (Sept. 24, 2015) (on file with the Op. Comm.) (hereinafter "Securities Board Brief').

### The Honorable Glenn Regar

- Page 8 (KP-0048)

Board Brief at 9. Regardless of which Strategies the Legislature intended for the specific appropriations at issue, however, the effect ofthe Governor's veto is to reduce by $557,352 in fiscal year 2016 and $636,688 in fiscal year 2017 the funds appropriated to the Securities Board by the Act. If

### additional funds apart from those vetoed by the Governor are available, and if authority outside of the veto permits expenditure of those funds for employee merit salary increases, the Board is likely authorized to spend its other funds accordingly.The Honorable Glenn Hegar

- Page 9 (KP-0048)

SUMMARY

Article 4, section 14 ofthe Texas Constitution authorizesthe Governor to veto "items of appropriation." The Texas Supreme Court has explained that "where a certain provision designates a specified purpose and the amount to be used therefor, it is an item ofappropriation even though it may be included in a larger, more general item." The provisions vetoed by the Governor each designate a specificpurpose andthe amountto beusedtherefor, and they are items ofappropriation subjectto the Governor's yeto.
The Governor's authority to veto items ofappropriation is purely negative. An effective veto nullifies the setting aside ofan amount of funds for a specific purpose. Ifadditional funds apart fromwhatwasvetoedbythe Governorare available, andifauthority outside ofthe vetoed language permits expenditure ofthose funds for a given purpose, an entity is likely authorized to spend its other funds accordingly.

BRANTLEY STARR Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER Chair, Opinion Committee AssistantAttorney General Verytruly yours,

# o~ CHARLES E. ROY First Assistant Attorney General