NE

cm EXAS AUSTIN. TExae 789 March 24, 1967

Hon. J. R. Singleton Executive Director Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas OpinionNo. M-47 Rez Constructionof Article 6069, V.C.S. Dear Mr. Singleton: You have re uested our constructionof the following tlon of Article ;t 069, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which sets porforth one of the duties of the Parks and Wildlife Depa~rtment as follows: 11

. . .toarrange for or employ a kee er In each of the State Parks.
. who shallbe cl&with all the powers and authoriiy of a peace officer of the county, for the purposes of caring for and protecting the propertywithin said parks." (EmphasisSupplied.) Your questionsmay be stated as follows: (1) Who may be designatedas a "keeper"as that term Is employed In Article 6069, V.C.S.? (2) Whether more than one "keeper"or an assistant to the "keeper"may be designated in the larger State Parks?; and, (3) Whether the designation of a~Parks and Wildlife Department employeeas "keeper" -and his continuationas Annemployee of the Parks and Wildlife Departmentunder one of the categories for which funds have been provided by the appropriationact adoptedby the 59th Legislature would violate Section 33, Article 16 of the Texas Constitution? In your requestyou have stated, in part, that: II

. . . "Formany years (fromthe late 1930'suntil September 1, 1965) the respective appropriationacts providedannual salaries for the position of "ParkKeepers" In certain specified State Parks. Effective September 1, 1965, the

-217-Hon. J. R. Singleton,Page 2 (M- 47 )

appropriationacts, based on the State Classification System, havemade no provision for "ParkKeepers" as such,but have set up certain classifiedpositionsas Park SuperintendentIII, Park Superintendent II, Park SuperintendentI, ParkAttendant III, Park Attendant II, Park Attendant I.
. .' It has been assumed that the designation "ParkKeeper" (as provided for by prior appropriationbills) was Intended to refer to the person with the duties designated in the above quoted portion of Article 6069. Employing the canon of construction that the law does not favor a repeal by lmpllcatlon,we do not feel that the 59th Leglslature intended to place In a~beyance the duties which the a~bove quoted portion of Article 6069 states shall be performed,but rather, it 1s our Interpretationthat the Legislature Intended for the Parks and Wildlife Depa,rtment to delegate such duties to the employees otherwiseprovided for under the currentAppropriationBill. So long as the Legislature itself does not define the authority a~nd duties of a position for which It providesan employer-a~gency

with an appropriation, such employer-agencymay from time to time define and redefine the duties of such position so as to carry out efficiently the duties of such employer-agency

- i.e.: the only purpose whichmay reasonablybe ascribed to the Legislature in providing funds for employees of a state agency is so that the employeeswhich may be thereby hiredmay assist such agency In carrying out its sta~tutory duties. It is our opinion that,,the Departmentbeing under a duty to arrange for or employ a keeper in each of the State Parks should designate either the highest clamled employee In each of such parks or some other employee to fulfill the duties set out In the above quoted portion of Article 6069. We answeryour first questionas follows: Any of those employeeswhom the Parks and Wildlife Department have been authorized to employmay be designatedas a "keeper" so longas their duties as "keeper"do not conflict with statutoryprovisions, If any, defining the duties of such classifiedposition as theymay hold. Your second question Is: "Whethermore than one 'keeper'or an assistant to the 'keeper'may be designated In the larger State Parks?"

-218-Hon. J. R. Singleton,page 3 (M-47 )

This question Is answered by the clear language of the statutewhich provides for "a keeper' in each park, but which neitherprovides for 'keepers" In each park nor for "a keeper and assistant keepers" In each park, As the language employed Is clearand unambiguousyour second question Is answered in the nega.tlve. Your third question is: "Whether the designation of a Parks and Wildlife Department employee as 'keeper'- and his continuation as an emplovee of the Parks and Wildlife Department under one of the categories for which funds have been providedby the appropriation act a~dopted by the 59th Legislature-wouldviolate Section 33, Article I6 of the Texas Constitution?" The employeewho 1s designated to perform the duties oft "keeper" Is not holding at the same time two offices or posltions of honor, trust or profit. Only additional duties have been added to the position he is holding. Therefore Section 33 of Article I6 of the Texas Constitution Is not violated. We therefore answer your third question in the nega,tlve. SUMMARY 1. Any of those agents whom the Parks and Wildlife Department have been authorized to employ may be designated as a "keeper" so long as their duties as "keeper"do not conflictwith statutory provisions, if any, defining the duties of such position as theymay hold. 2. The Parks and Wildlife Departmentmay not deslgnate more than one 'keeper" in each park nor may the Department designate "assistantkeepers" wlthout additional authority from the Legislature. 3. The employee who Is designated to perform the duties of "keeper" Is not holding at the same time two offices or positions of honor, trust or profit. Only additional duties have been added to the position he Is holding. Section 33 of Article I6 of the Texas Constitution Is not violatedby the adding of additional duties.

-219-Hon. J. R. Singleton,page 4 (M-47 )

Prepared by Larry J. Craddock Assistant Attorney General LJC/mfw APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman Lonny Zwlener Sam Kelley Tom Keever Ronald Luna STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT: A. J. Carubbl, Jr.

-220-