# TheAttorney GeneralofTexas
Novtmber 7. 1985 JIM MATTOX Attorney General

,,,wn&s&Buildln~ Audi”. TX. 7071%2548 5121475.2501 T*lrx 0101874.1357 talecopler 512J4750256

714Jackson. Sulle700 Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 2w742as44

4824Alberta Ave..SUitC(80 ElPnso,TX. 799052793 915/533.34S4

,ITexas, suite 700 nouston, TX. 77002-3111 7lY223aSS

806Broadway, Suite312 Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 8C6747.5238

4309 N.Tenth. Suits 6 McAll.n. TX. 78501-1685 512lS82.4547

200M&I Plaza. Suite4W SanAntonlo, TX. 782052797 51212254191

AnEqualOppOftUnitYl Alflrmativs Action Employer Mr.Vernon H. ArreL:L Commissioner Texas Rehabilitatim Coamlssion 118E. Riverside Dr:lve Austin. Texas 787134 Opinion No. m-376 Re: Whether article 6252-llc, V.T.C.S., applies to psychologists whoprovide dlagnostlc and restoration services directly to clients of the Texas Rehabilitation Commlssloa Dear Mr. Arrell: You state t’hat the Texas Rehabilitation Commission provides diagnostic and re~~toration semices to clients as required by federal law and regulation., Amongthe services to be provided are psycholo- -. gical services. I’he commission has arranged with licensed psychologists to provide such services directly to the client at commi5sioa expense. See Texas Rehabilitation Commission. Psychological Evaluations 6 Counseling 7. MaximumAffordable Payment Schedule, (revised August 1, 1984) (fees for counseling performed directly by licensed psychologist). You ask thl? following question about contracting licensed psychologists to provide diagnostic and restoration services for your clients: Do the provision5 of article 6252-11~.

V.T.C.S<.I, ‘Use of Private Consultants by State Agencies I)

’ apply to psychological services that are prov!;ded directly to clients of the commission for diagnostic andrestoration services? Article 625:.-,llc. V.T.C.S., governs the selection and use of private consultants by state agencies. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-11~. 53. It requires the agency to publish notice in the Texas Register inviting offers for consulting services; after the agency contracts vith a private consultant it must publish information about the contract in the Texas Register. Id. 554. 6. Reports and other materials developed by the cousultant must be filed vlth the Texas State Library and, if requested, vith the Legislative Budget Eoard and the Governor’s Bud:getandPlanning Office. Id. 55. -

p. 1717Mr. Vernon Il. Arrcll - pagi, 2 (JM-376) *

Article 6252-11~. V.¶‘.C.S., vas enacted in 1977 and amended in 1979. Acts 1977, 65th Le&, ch. 454 at 1185; Acts 1979. 66th Leg., ch. 773, art. 98, at 1957. The 1979 amendmentmwere enacted aa part of Eouae Bill No. 1673, th’cState Purchasing endGeneral Services Act. Acta 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 773 et 1908. Thecaption of Rouse Bill No. 1673 reads aa follows:

&I Act rclat$n:$ to creation of the State Purcheaing and Eeneral Services Commission and abolition of rho State Board of Control. Id. The caption does not mention the ameudmentsto article 6252-11~. n.C.S.;. or the employwut of consultants by state agencies. The State Purchasing and Geneml Services Comisaion he8 no duties under article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S,;; the purchase of consulting services under that statute is express1.y excepted from the State Purchasing and General Services Act. V.Y.C.S. art. 601b, 53.01(b)(3). Article III. section 35of the Texas ConatltutZou provides that [n]o bill, (except general epproprlatLon bills, which may emlrace the various subjects and accounts, for md on accouot of which moueys are appropriated) 5'2511 contain morethan one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall he:embraced in aa act, vhich shall not be expressoil lo the title, such act shall be void only as to so muchthereof, as shall not be so expressed. The purpose of this secttoo is to give notice to the legislature and the people of the subject matter of the proposed law, and thereby to prevent passage of a lawuponone subject under guise of a title which expresses another. C. kaymen Construction Company v. American Indemnity Company, 471T%.2d 564 (Tex. 1971); Gulf Insurance Compaq v. James, 185S.W.2d 966 (,Tex. 1945). The cawion of Eome Bill No. 1673 does not nive notice of the provisions amending article 6252-llc, V.T.C.S. Se;, e.g., C. Hayman Constructioa CompanyY. rkmericaa Indemnity Company, 7 General Opinion VW-225(:?157). Attorney HouseBill No. 1673there ore violates article III. section 35 of the Texas Constitution. and it is void insofar as it attempts to amendarticle 6252-11~. V.T.C.S. Arnold v. Leonard, 273S.W. 799 (Tsex. 1925). Legislative history enables us to determine vhy the caption of HouseBill No. 1673is deiective. Thebill as introduced hadthe same caption aa the enacted bill. It did not include the amendments to article 6252-11~. V.T.C,.S., when introduced or vhen approved by the

p. 1718Mr.Vernon H.Arrell - Page 3 (a-376)

Eouse. A Senate floor amendment iocluded the amendmentsto article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S., in Eoua~~Bill No. 1673. Bill File for 8.1). No. 1673, 66th Leg. 1979, Legirilatlve Reference Library. The title of Rouse Bill No. 1673 wes not rewritten to encompess the edditioael material. TheHouse adopted the Senate amendmentssndEouae Bill No. 1673 carrled the same tith when finally enacted aa when it vas __._ ---~~~~ .~~~ ~~ introduced. Seegenerally Gulf Insurance CbmpanyV. James. 185S.W.2d 966 (Tex. 1945): Attorney G<zeral Opinion WW-225(1957) (title defects arising whenbiil wasamendedduring the legislative process). Since the 1979 amendments to article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S., are void. ve look to the unamead~td version of the statute to ansver your questions. SeeCulberson v. Ashford, 18S.W.2d 585 (Tex. 1929); In re Johnson, 554xW.2d 775 (TEL, Clv. App. - Corpus Christ1 1977),x ref ’d n.r,e., per curlam. Sli!l S.W.2d 88 (Tex. 1978); Attorney Genx Opinion hW-156(1980). Article 6252-llc, V.T.C.S., governs the use of consultants and consulting services by state agencies. ha enacted In 1977, the statute Included the following definitions:

Section 1. In this Act: (1) ‘Consultiu8 service’ maanathe practice of studying an exist.l.ag or a proposed operation or project of an agency andadvising the agency with regard to the ope::ation or project.

co ‘Private c~oasultant’ mrans an entity that performs coosulti:1S services. Acts 1977. 65th Leg., ch. 454 at 1185. Attorney General Opinion R-1173 (1978) considered v!wther an outside audit of local entities receiving federal grant funds van. subject to article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S., eod in addreaaloS the question, discussed the scope of the above definitions. After reviewing legislative history, the opinion coocluded that the definition of “coosulting services” referred to management or program corwlting, that is, studies of an agency designed to evaluate its programs aodprocedures andto recommendmore efficient methods of perfc’rming its duties. A “private consultant” within article 6252-llc, V.T.C.S., did oot include a persoo retained by the agency to help car:?, out its usual duties. Attorney General Opinioa H-1173. The oplnic~n concluded that the statute did not apply to a private accountaot hired by the Department of CommuaityAffairs to audit federal grants madeto local entities. Onthe basis of Attorney General Opinion R-1173 andthe language of article 6252-11~ as ori:ginally enacted, we conclude it does aot apply to the contracts in t,uestion. Psychologists under contract with

p. 1719Hr. Vera00 PI.Arm11 - **Page** 4 W-376)

**the** Texas Rehabilitation Conmdaaion to provide service6 directly to COs,,,,i66iOt,Client6 a=6 Dot 

### “Wl.WLS~6~ent COUEUltaDtE.” **The9** do not rtudy

an uirting or a proposed Operation or project Of

an agency and (advicle] the 6geocy vith regard **to** the operation or project.

Act6 1977. 65th Leg., ch. 454 at 1185. **Th69** instead 6upply the dlaguoetic and reetoration tervices which the coemi66ion ha6 a legal duty to provldc it6 CliEntI,. The Rehabilitation Commlasioa 16 not subject to article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S., when It contract6 vith p6ychOlogfEtE t0 provide diagnostic and rEstOratiOn SetviCe t0 it6 CliEUt6.

The title of ‘Rouse Bill No. 1673 of the

Sixty-sixth Legi6:tature doe6 not give notice of the bill’6 provlel~ws amndlng article 6252-11~~ V.T.C.S. The title fail6 to meet the requirements of article III, 6cction 35, of the Texa6Constitution andHouseBill No. 1673 is void insofar as it atteupte to amend article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S. Article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S., as originally enacted by the Sixty-fifth Legislature in 1977. remains in effect. The 1977 version of article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S.. doe6 nc’t apply to **the** Texas Rehabilftation CO,‘6biSSiC’uo.’ 6 contract6 with licensed psychologists to provide services directly to the Cd6SiOl3’6 CliClitS.
Very 

# J truly your

A JIM UATTOX Attorney General of Texas MARY KELLER Executive AssiEtaut Attorney General ROBBRT

CRAP Special Assistant Attorney G,eneral RICRGILPIN Chairman, Opinion Covmlttec!

p. 1720, Mr. Vernon tl. Arr611 - Page !i (m-376)

Prepared by SueanL. Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITl'RE Rick Gilpin. Chairman Colin Carl SusanGardEon TonyGuillory JimWoelllnger Jennifer Riggs NancySutton SarahWoelk

p. 1721