### THE ATTORXEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

June 3, 1987 .nx MA.l”rox XrroRNEY DEXVERAI.

HonorableMark H. Dettman Midland CountyAttorney P. 0. Box 2559 Midland, Texas 79702 OpinionNo. ~~-717 Re: Liability of the state for postage, telegraph and telephone expensesof the district attorney and district judges of Midland county DearMr. Dettman: You requestan opinion concerning the liabilityof the state of Texas to pay for the postage, telegraph, and telephone expenses of the district judges and district attorneyofMidland Countyunder theprovisionsof sectidns 24.019and 43.004of theGovernmentCode. Section 24.019 of the Government Code, Expenses of District Judge,provides:

(a) A district judge engaged in the discharge of official duties in a county other than the judge’s county of residence is entitled to traveling and other necessary expenses, as provided by the Travel Regulations Act of 1959 (Article6823a,Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes). (b) A district judge is entitled to receive from the state the actual and necessary postage, telegraph, and telephone expenses incurred in the dischargeof officialduties. (c) The expensesshallbe paid by the stateon a sworn itemizedaccount showing the expenses. Section 43.004,Expenses, states:

(a) A district attorney engaged in the discharge of official duties in a county other than the district attorney’s county of residence is entitled to traveling and other necessary

p. 3331EonorableMark H. Dettman - Page 2 (JM-717)

expenses, as provided by the Travel Regulations Act of 1959 (Article 6823a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes). (b) A district attorney is entitled to receive from the state the actual and necessary postage, telegraph, and telephone expenses incurred in the dischargeof officialduties. (c) The expenses shallbe paid by the stateon a sworn itemizedaccouot showing the expenses. You state that it is the position of Midland County that the state of Texas is obligated to pay for the necessary postage, telephone and telegraph expenses of the district judges and district attorney of Midland County under the foregoing provisions of the Government Code. The Comptroller of Public Accounts takes the position that sections 24.019 and 43.004 apply to district judges and district attorneys of multi-county districts and that the state comptroller is limited to payment of those expenses incurredwhile in the performance of duties in a county other than in the county of the official'sresidence. Midland County is not part of a multi-county judicial district. Govt. Code 4924.243, 24.415. Article 6820, V.T.C.S., was the origin of sections 24.019 and 43.004. Article 6820was repealed by Acts 1985. 69th Leg., ch. 480, 826, at 2049, effective September 1, 1985. It was carried forward in enactment of the Government Code, a nonsubstantive revision of the statutes, by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, at 1720. effective September 1, 1985. Article 6820, Judicial District Expenses, provided: All district judges and district attorneyswhen

engaged in the discharge of their official duties in any county in this state other than the county of their residence, shall be allowed their traveling and other necessary expenses, as provided by the Travel Regulations Act of 1959, while actually engaged in the discharge of such duties. Such officers shall also receive the actual and necessary postage, telegraph and telephone expenses incurredby them in the actual dischargeof theirduties. Such expenses shallbe paid by the state upon the sworn and itemized account of each district judge or attorney entitled thereto, showing such expenses.

p. 3332HonorableMark H. Dettman - Page 3 (~~-717)

Attorney General Opinion V-306 (1947) construed article 6820 at a time when specified amounts were set out for each county in the multi-county district,but otherwisewas in the same substantive form as it appearsherein. It stated:

A District Attorney is entitled to be paid all actual and necessary expenses incurred by him in the dischargeof his duties in countiesoutsideof his home countynot to exceed the limitationas to amounts contained in the statute. Art. 6820,Rev. Civ. Stat. In Attorney General Opinion JM-670 (1987). we quoted with approval, a well known rule of construction set forth in Attorney GeneralOpinionM-650 (1970). There itwas stated:

Another fundamental rule requires that a statute be construed as a whole and that all of itspartsbe harmonized if possible, so as to give effect to the entire act according to the evident intention of the legislature.
. . . [T]he Court will endeavor to reconcile the various provisions of the act, insofar as they nay appear to be conflicting or inconsistent, to the end that the enactment and every word, phrase, clause, and sentencemay have itsproper effect. Each part of the statute is tobe consideredin connection with every other part and with the entire enactment, in order toproduce aharmonious whole and to reach the true legislative intent. Thus, in case of doubt as to the meaning of a particular word, clause, provisions, or section, it is to be viewed in the light of all the language employed. It follows that a provision will not be given a meaning out of harmony with otherprovisions and inconsistentwith thepurpose of the act, although it would be susceptible of such constructionstandingalone. 53Tex. Jur. 2d 229-32,Statutes,Sec. 160. While the re-enactment of article 6820 into sections 24.019 and 43.004 of the Government Code suffers loss of clarity in the transition, we believe there is no substantive change. When subsections (b) of sections 24.019 and 43.004 are isolated, it would appear that a district judge and a district attorney are entitled to receive from the state the actual and necessary postage, telegraph, and telephone expenses incurred in the discharge of official duties without regard to the compositionof the district or residenceof the

p. 3333EonorableMark H. Dettman - Page 4 (JM-717)

judge. liowever,when subsections (b) are read in connection with otherportions of the statute,a differentresult is dictated.
It is our opinion that the state of Texas is not liable for the postage, telegraph and telephone expenses of the district judge and district attorney of Midland County under the provisions of sections 24.019and 43.004. This construction of sections 24.019 and 43.004 appears to be consistent with amounts budgeted for these offices in the General Appropriations Act. Section 7 of article IV of the Act provides an amount for

District Attorneys' expenseswhile engaged in the actual performance of their duties, not to exceed $1,500 per1 county when the judicial district is composed of more than one county. (Emphasis supplied). General Appropriations Act, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. IV, $7, at budget 438 (IV-22).

1. In a brief submitted by the comptroller of public accounts it is pointed out that the district attorney of Midland County is eligible to practice law, and under the GeneralAppropriationsAct is entitled to receive $13,650 from the state for certain expenses per year as a prosecutor with a single county district. Section 9 of article IV of theAct provides:

For the payment of salaries of Assistant District Attorneys, Investigators and/or secretarial help and expenses, includingtravel for thesepersonnel as determined by the District Attorney, Criminal District Attorney and County Attorneys designated in ItemsNo. 4., S., 8., 11.. 12..and 15.Payment shall not exceed $27.650 per district per year inmulti-county districts and $13,650 per district per year in single-county districts.
. . . (Emphasissupplied). General Appropriations Act, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. IV, 19,atbudget 439 (IV-23). The comptrollerhas furnisheduswith copiesof vouchers from the Midland County District Attorney for the last fiscal year for the amountof $13,650.00.

p. 3334HonorableMark H. Dettman - Page 5 (JM-717)

Section 2 of article IV of theAct provides: District Judges' expenses while engaged in the actualperformance of their duties, not to exceed $1,500 per county when the judicial district is composed of more than one county. (Emphasis supplied). General AppropriationsAct, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. IV, $2. atbudget 437 (IV-21). SUMMARY

The state of Texas is not liable for the postage, telegraph and telephone expenses of the district judge and district attorney of Midland Countyunder theprovisionsof sections 24.019and 43.004of theGovernmentCode.

JIM MATTOX AttorneyGeneral of Texas JACKHIGHTOWER FirstAssistantAttorneyGeneral
MART KELLER ExecutiveAssistantAttorneyGeneral JIJDGEZOLLIE STEAKLEY SpecialAssistantAttorneyGeneral RICK GILPIN Chairman,OpinionCommittee Preparedby Tom G. Davis AssistantAttorneyGeneral

p. 3335