NE 

cm EXAS 

AUSTIN. TExae 789 

March 24, 1967 

Hon. J. R. Singleton 

Executive Director 

Parks and Wildlife Department 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. M-47 

Rez Construction of 

Article 6069, V.C.S. 

Dear Mr. Singleton: 

You have re uested our construction of 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 

. . .to arrange for or employ a kee er In each 

of the State Parks. . who shall be cl&with all 

the powers and authoriiy of a peace officer of the 

county, for the purposes of caring for and protecting 

the property within said parks." (Emphasis Supplied.) 

Your questions may be stated as follows: 

(1) Who may be designated as 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 employee as "keeper" -and his continuation as Ann employee of the Parks and Wildlife Department under one 

of the categories for which funds have been provided 

by the appropriation act adopted by the 59th Legislature 

would violate Section 33, Article 16 of the Texas Constitution? 

In your request you have stated, in part, that: 

II 

. . . 

"For many years (from the late 1930's until September 

1, 1965) the respective appropriation acts provided annual 

salaries for the position of "Park Keepers" In certain 

specified State Parks. Effective September 1, 1965, the 

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

appropriation acts, based on the State Classification 

System, have made no provision for "Park Keepers" as 

such, but have set up certain classified positions as 

Park Superintendent III, Park Superintendent II, Park 

Superintendent I, Park Attendant III, Park Attendant II, 

Park Attendant I. . .' 

It has been assumed that the designation "Park Keeper" (as 

provided for by prior appropriation bills) 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 Interpretation that the Legislature Intended 

for the Parks and Wildlife Depa,rtment to delegate such duties 

to the employees otherwise provided for under the current Appropriation Bill. So long as the Legislature itself does not define 

the authority a~nd duties of a position for which It provides an 

employer-a~gency with an appropriation, such employer-agency may 

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 which may reasonably be ascribed to the 

Legislature in providing funds for employees of a state agency 

is so that the employees which may be thereby hired may assist 

such agency In carrying out its sta~tutory duties. 

It is our opinion that,,the Department being 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 answer your first question as follows: 

Any of those employees 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 conflict 

with statutory provisions, If any, defining the duties of such 

classified position as they may hold. 

Your second question Is: 

"Whether more 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 

statute which provides for "a keeper' in each park, but which 

neither provides for 'keepers" In each park nor for "a keeper 

and assistant keepers" In each park, As the language employed 

Is clear and unambiguous your 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 

provided by the appropriation act a~dopted by the 59th 

Legislature-would violate Section 33, Article I6 of the 

Texas Constitution?" 

The employee who 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 conflict with statutory provisions, if any, defining the duties 

of such position as they may hold. 

2. The Parks and Wildlife Department may not deslgnate more than one 'keeper" in each park nor may 

the Department designate "assistant keepers" 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 violated by 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 -