Eon. Ben Ramsey Opinion Bo. V-1525.

LieutenantGovernor Capitol Station Re: Constltutlonallty,ofproAustin, Texas posed legislation to relmburse the subsistenceexpenses **of** State employees while traveling on official businessby a fixed per Dear Sir: diem allowance.

Your request for an ~oplnlon oi this office the above subject reads in part as follows:

"The Legislative

Budget Board Is exasrlnlng State laws concerningofflolal travel by governmentempl

3 888, with the view of recommending to the 5 rd Legislatureany modlflcatlons that seem to be desirable.
"That examinationhas disclosedan element of 'hidden'expense in the present procedure of preparing and ohecklngdetailed expense aooount claims, and has led to a search for sFmpler and more effeotlve ‘meansof-reiaburslng travel expenses. One proposal Is to substitutea flat per dlem.subslstenoeallovante for the resent plan of paying aatual expenses up to $6.00 a day.

"In arriving at the per diem rate for subslstenoeallowance,we think the legislature could reasonablybe expected to select a figure that fairly representsthe average daily costs for meals and lodging lnourredby state officials and employeeswhile in travel status.
"The use of a fixed, average ~rate~ln lieu of reimbursingactual expenses up to a maximum -mightmean that in some Instancesan employee would receive reimbursementslightly In excess of actual expenses. In other instances the employee might receive less than actual expenses.on

IHon. Ben Ramsey, Page 2 (V-1525)

"1. Would the use of a flat, per diem rate for subslstenoe allowanoebe contraarJr~te Article III, Sections 44 and 53 of the Texas Constitution?
"2

. Would Article 1, Section 3; Artlcle III, Section 51; Article XVI, Section 6; or any other provisionof the Texas Constitution,deny validityto the use of a per diem rste for relmburalng aubslstenae expense Incurred In officialtravel?"
The pertinentprovisionsof the Texas Constltutlen are as follows:

Article 1, Section 3:
"All free men, when they form a s-81 aompact,have equal rights, and no IME', 01 set of men, Is entitledto exclusiveasparate pub110 emoluments, aonslderatlon

of public or privileges, bnt In services.
Artlole III, Section $4:
"The Legislature shall provideby laws for the compensation of all officers,semts, agents and publla contractors, not **provided** for In this Constitution, but shall not wnt e%trs compensation to any offloer,agent, servsnt. or pub110 contractors. after such pub110 se*00 shall have Men performedor centrdct entered Into, for the performanceof the same; nor grant, by appropriation or otherwlse,

any amowt of money out of the T,masurf of the State, to any lndlvldual,on a claim, real **or** pretended,when the same shall not have been provided for Zyr

pre-existinglaw; nor employ anj one In the name of the State, unless authorlzedby pre-existinglaw."
Article III, Section 51:
"The Legislature shall have no power to make sny grant or authorlsethe making of any grsnt of pub110 moneys to any lndlvldual,association of Individuals, muulalpal or other corporation whatsoever;

. . ."Hon. Ben Ramsey, Page 3 (V-1525)

Artlale III, Section 53:
"The Leglslaturs shall have no power to grant, or te authorizeany county or nnnlcipal authority to grant, any extm compeasatiou, se4 or allowanceto a public officer,ag4at, servant or asntraotor, after aervlaehas been Pbndered,Dr a contracthas been ernter4dInto, and performed In whole or In part

. . .*
Artlole XVI, Section 6:

'Ho appropriation

for private or Individualpurposes shall b4 made.

. . ."

It la our understanding that the &pose! laglslatlonIs to be In ths Sons of a general law, leaving only rates of reimbursement and appropriated amcluntb for ,travel to be set,forthIn appropriation bills. :Ther4& fore, we do not deem It necessary to discuss the.necesslty for general leglslatlon as a prerequlslt4

to prevl.sions

In an appropriation bill or the validity of approprlatlon

bill "fiders'whloh alter the gsaeral law., In this oonnectlon your attention 1s Invited to Attorney General

Opinion V-1254 (1951).
The rule Is fundamentalthat the Legislature can eaaot all laws not prohibitedby the Constitution, either In expr4ss terms or by necessary lmplloatlon. 1 cooleg on Coastltutlonal Limltatloas (8th Ed.) 355; 9 Tex. Jur. 444, 446. If the Constitution dues,not rastrainths Leglslatur4 from providing for rsiabursement for travel expense In the proposedmanner, than It Is wlthla the Leglslatursls power to enact sucha statute.

s4ctions 44 and, 53 0s Arti III or th4 constitution

prohlblt the Legislaturefrom provldliig- "extra coapensatlen"

or Lany extra compensitlon, r44 4r allowanae" **to** an officer **or** employeeafter pub110 s~4rvloe has been.rendered. We do sot understandthat.theproposed

. legislation

Is intended to be retroactive,so aa. to all44 officers

and 4mployeesadditionalreimbursement for subsistenceexpenses on travel. performedbefors ths passage 0s the statute. That being true, w4 do not thlnk.thew constitutional

provisionshave any applic.atlon, as they would relate only to allowancesfor servloesperfofMd prior to the legislative authorlsatlon. See Dallas Countyv. Lively, 106 Tex. 364, 167 S.W. 219 TTvlf4T, and dlsa4ntlng

opinion by Mr. Justice Hawkins at p. 382; Jo&maEon. Ben Ramsey, Page 4 (V-1525)

v, Veltmann 171 S-Y. 287 (Tex.Clv. App. 1914, error '~inmd 27 S

urnor 71.

Barnes, 19 S.W. 26 325 (T4x. Clv. App. .W.2d 532 (Tox.CORBI.A~P. 1930); Pierson v. Galveston county 131 s.w.2d 27 (T4x.civ.A~~. 1939). We thereforehold &at the.relmburseme&tDFOdd&h by ths proposed statute and the apprcprlatl& pursuant the-to vi11 not be In contravention of these conatltntlonal

provlslona,as It vi11 operate cm19 on futurs transaotlons

between the State and Its officersand employees and will not affect prior a4rvlc4s.

Section 51, Article III of the Cun~tltutlon prohibitsthe Legislature from.maklng any.gratit

of public moneys to any Individualexcept for a pubIlc purpose. Section 3 of Article I condemnsthe granelng of "publlo4m01wmntsU ~4xoept in consideration

of public servlees

. Per diem reimbursement would be lnvalld'lf oonstrabd

as a gr&&iy or~donatlonof public funds to an lndlvidrulfor ti

rlvate purposes. In ( i'.' c'l!i# O'S Dal- & 118 Tex. 2 , 6 s.u.28 738, 740
, t@3 court. ~'A'.

**n**

**. .**  **.** Without dlsousslngIn d&all these plvvislonsof the Constltutlon, it Is sufflolent to say each of them Is Intendedto pr4- v4nt the ap&lcation of public funds to PI%- vat& purposesi In other words, to prevent the gratuitousgrant of suoh funds to any Indlvldual, aorporatlon,

**or** purpose whatsoever. This,llmltatlon upon tbn power of the Leglslatur4Is a wholesome one and is plainly stated in unepuiroar1 terms. It la academic to say the I&Isl&urn has power te pass any law which Its asdcm snggests that la not forblddeti by some prcvlslons of the Constitution (ftederdl or state). If the pensloh provided for ln'thls acti ls~a gmatulty or dcnatlon to the beu4fLolary,It la clearlyforbiddenby the fundlllental aw. On the other **hand,** If It 18 a part of the oompensation of such employee for 84rv104s rendered to the city, or If It be for a public purpos4, then olearly It Is a valid **aercise** of the laglslatlvepower.n Unqnmstlonably,

an official or employeewho Is requl& to travel on officialduty undertak4sthat travel in the perform&nceof public services. Them can be no qpsstlonthat reimbursement for actual and necessary exp4ns4s

which the lndfvldualmust Incur because of har-Hon. Ben Ramsey, Page 5 (V-1525)

lng to travel on officialbusiness-is not a gratuity or a grant 

### sr money for a private purpose. The per diem rate of reimbursement under the propsoedbill would be based oa the average daily expense vhlch orflcialsand employ008aould be reasenablyexpected to Incur for meals

ma lodgings. In aotme instancesthe actual reasonable oost to the emplgee might be slightly less and In othexa it might be slightlymore than the rate allowed,but the State's total output for subsistence vould' l pprcxlmate ;Eg~l neoeasary expenditures vhlch its agents had

. The question arises as to ðer any excess over the employee'sactual expenditures would be a gratuity to the employee.

In our oplnlon, suoh an excess would not be a gratuity. The provisions for reimbursements are a part of the terms on which the State contractswith lta empleyees ror their services In travelingOE official bim.lless

. The employeeby agreeing to accepk the fixed per diem rate relinquishes his right to relrborsement for a possible exoesa over that amount la his actual, reasonable

expenses. This plaees the paymemt ef the fired rate on a valid contractual basis, regardless of whether the emplcyeelsactual expenses In any one day ara more or less thaa the per diem rate.

The passage 0r any piece of leglslatlon1s preatmedto be preoededby luvestlgatlon and.faet f'lndlng by the Legislature. This serves as a reasemable foundationfor the subsequentlavr.Thus, In passing an enactmentof this characterthe Legislaturewould be flxlng the amount. which would, according to ita flndlngs, reascaablycompensateState employees for expenses lncurredvhlle traveling on State'8 business. The Leglslature Is prohibited from approprlatlng the' public money to other than strictly goverumental purposesby 'Sectioa 6, Artlole,XVI of the Texas Constltutlon, but.thls prohibitionIsnot applicablehere It the Legislaturerlxes an amount which Is reasonablerepaymentfor expenses l rlalngwhen au oifioer or employee is avay rrem his homs station.

It is within the constitutional authority of the Legislatureto reimburse subsistenceex-Hoa. Ben Ramsey, Page 6 (V-1525)

penses of State employeeswhile travelingoa OrriGiai businessbj a fixed pes diem allewanoe.
Ponra very truly,

APPROVED:

Maw K. Wall ReviewingAssistant PRICEDANIEL Attoraey General

Charles D. Mathews First Assistant
JFJ:df

i