December 15, 1961 

Hon. William J. Burke 

Executive Director 

State Board of Control 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Burke: 

Opinion No. WW-1224 

Re: Whether the removal 

of a portion of a 

non-load bearing 

wall for the purpose 

of installing a door 

and appropriate hardware from which the 

use and benefit would 

be an improvement in 

communications and 

efficiency of the 

offices in question 

is prohibited by 

Section 39 of Article 

V, Senate Bill 1, 57th 

Legislature and related 

question. 

You have requested an opinion of this office on 

the following two questions: 

(1) 

anon-load 

stalling 

Is the removal of a portion of a 

bearing wall for the purpose of in- . _ 

a aoor anu appropriate narciware 

from which the use and benefit would be 

an improvement in communications and efficiency 

of the offices in question prohibited by the 

language of Section 39 of Article V of the 

General Appropriations Bill? 

(2) Is the Board of Control prohibited 

from installing necessary hand rails on the 

outside steps required for the safety of 

occupants and personnel employed by the State 

in the State Office Building. Supreme Court 

Building, the Archives and Library Building, 

and the Insurance Building when such hand 

rails and/or other related safety appliances 

were inadvertantly overlooked in the construction of the buildings? 

The answer to your questions depend on an 

interpretation of certain portions of the GenLral 
Honorable William J. Burke, page 2 (WW-1224) 

Appropriations Bill, Senate Bill 1, Acts of the 57th 

Legislature, First Called Session, 1961, which will hereinafter be referred to as the "Appropriations Bill." 

Section 39 of Article V of said bill reads as follows: 

"BUILDING ALTERATIONS PROHIBITED. 

None of the funds appropriated in this Act 

may be expended for removing walls, partitions 

or any other permanent part of the first and 

second state office buildings, the Supreme 

Court building, the Archives and Insurance 

buildings except for such renovations that 

may be necessary for new offices or departments 

moving into such buildings, unless otherwise 

authorized and provided for elesewhere in 

this Act," 

The appropriations to the Board of Control are 

listed in Article III of the Appropriations Bill and include in Item 12 thereof, an amount for repairs and improvements to the Capitol, other State buildings, grounds, 

and properties in Austin, including equipment, materials 

and labor ($42,500 for the year ending August 31, 1962, 

and $60,000 for the year ending August 31, 1963). Following 

the appropriation to the Board of Control in the Appropriations 

Bill, the following language is used which we quote in part: 

"It is the intent of the Fifty-seventh 

Legislature that the appropriations made in 

Item 12 above shall be expended by the Board 

of Control for accomplishing the repairs and 

"It is the intent of the Fifty-seventh 

Legislature that the appropriations made in 

Item 12 above shall be expended by the Board 

of Control for accomplishing the repairs and 

improvements listed below; such listing, however, is for Informational purposes and shall 

not be construed as limiting the Board of Control 

to either the estimated amounts or to the listed 

items if unexpended balances permit other repairs 

and improvements deemed necessary and practical 

by the Board of Control. 

"Informational sublisting of Item 12 above: 

II 

. . . ' (Emphasis supplied) 

It is clear that the Board of Control is specifically 

given the authority to make needed repairs and improvements 

to all State buildings under Articles 670 and 673, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes, if there are appropriated funds available 

for that purpose. (See Attorney General's Opinion WW-259 

(19571.) 
. . 

Honorable William J. Burke, page 3 (WW-1224) 

Your first inquiry deals with whether a portion 

of a non-load bearing wall can be removed for the purposes 

of installing a doorway, etc., therein. You have supplied 

the additional information to this office that there will 

be a sufficient unexpended appropriation balance to cover 

the project which you inquire about. In addition, you 

have pointed out that such a doorway installation would 

enhance the efficiency and communications of the office 

involved to a large extent. 

"We recognize that the wall, as constructed 

at the time the building was erected and/or completed, is a seperation wall, that it is not a 

load bearing wall and the installation of the 

door would in no way effect the efficiency and/ 

or strength of the building." 

We are of the opinion that your first question 

should be answered in the negative. Section 39 of Article 

V of the Appropriations Bill prohibits the expending of 

appropriated funds for removing walls, partitions or any 

other permanent parts of the named buildings unless otherwise authorized and provided for in the Act. The portion 

of the Act following Item 12 of Article III under Board 

of Control of the Appropriations Bill quoted above authorizes 

the Board to use any unexpended balances under Item 12 to 

make such other repairs or improvements deemed necessary 

and practical by the Board. We take the position that 

the installation of this door, from the information which 

you supplied, falls within the meaning of ltother repairs 

or improvements deemed practical by the Board," and 

since you state there are available unexpended funds under 

said Item 12, it appears to be within the perogative of the 

Board of Control to effectuate this improvement. 

Further, Section 39 of Article V of the Appropriation 

Bill has reference to removing walls, partitions and other 

permanent parts of the buildings. In the strict technical 

sense, it appears that the addition of this doorway would 

not fall within this particular prohibition since it would 

not be necessary to remove the entire wall, and since you 

state that the installation of the door would in no way 

effect the efficiency or strength of the building. We 

believe this interpretation to be in line with the wellestablished rule that in statutory interpretation, an Act 

should be given a fair, rational, reasonable, and sensible 

construction in accordant- with its language and subject 

matter and with a view of accomplishing the legislative intent 
Honorable William J. Burke, page 4 (WW-1224) 

and purpose. McKinney v. City of Abilene, 250 S.W.22 224 

(Civ.App. 1952‘). We feel that any other interpretation would 

lead to an illogical and impractical conclusion. 

In answer to your second inquiry, we feel the above 

reasoning applies with equal force, and that it should also 

be answered negatively, That is, it is our opinion that if 

the Board of Control finds it necessary and practical to 

add the named hand rails and safety devices, and if unexpended 

balances exist under Item 12 of Article III under the Board 

of Control of the Appropriations Bill, the Board has the 

perogative to make such additions. Hand rails and safety 

devices are certainly not logically within the meaning of 

"removing of walls, partitions or any other permanent part" 

of the named buildings under Section 39 of Article V of 

the Appropriations Bill, yet ,are logically "other repairs 

and improvements"f under the Board of Control's appropriation, 

Item 12 of Article III. 

SUMMARY 

(1) The removal by the Board of Control 

of a portion of a non-load bearing wall for 

the purpose of installing a door from which 

use and benefit would be an improvenent in 

communications and efficiency is not prohibited 

by Section 39 of Article V of the General 

Appropriations Bill. 

(2) The Board of Control is not prohibited 

from installing the necessary hand rails and 

safety devices on the outside steps for the 

safety of occupants and personnel employed by 

the State in the named State buildings. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

A ib torney Gene-ral of Texas 

EBS:dhs:kh 

Pat Bailey 

Assistant 
Honoralbe William J. Burke, page 5 (WW-1224) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Riley Eugene Fletcher 

Elmer McVey 

John Leonarz 

Vernon Teofan 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.