The Attorney General of Texas 

Novtmber 7. 1985 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

,,,wn&s&Buildln~ 

Audi”. TX. 7071% 2548 

5121475.2501 

T*lrx 0101874.1357 

talecopler 512J4750256 

714 Jackson. Sulle 700 

Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 

2w742as44 

4824 Alberta Ave.. SUitC (80 

El Pnso, TX. 799052793 

915/533.34S4 

,I Texas, suite 700 

nouston, TX. 77002-3111 

7lY223aSS 

806 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 

8C6747.5238 

4309 N. Tenth. Suits 6 

McAll.n. TX. 78501-1685 

512lS82.4547 

200 M&I Plaza. Suite 4W 

San Antonlo, TX. 782052797 

51212254191 

An Equal OppOftUnitYl 

Alflrmativs Action Employer 

Mr. Vernon H. ArreL:L 

Commissioner 

Texas Rehabilitatim Coamlssion 

118 E. Riverside Dr:lve 

Austin. Texas 787134 

Opinion No. m-376 

Re: Whether article 6252-llc, 

V.T.C.S., applies to psychologists 

who provide 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., Among the 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. Maximum Affordable 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 and restoration 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:get and Planning Office. Id. 55. 

- 

p. 1717 
Mr. 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 amendmentm were enacted aa part 

of Eouae Bill No. 1673, th’c State Purchasing end General Services Act. 

Acta 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 773 et 1908. The caption 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 ameudments to 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 35 of the Texas ConatltutZou provides that 

[n]o bill, (except general epproprlatLon bills, 

which may eml race the various subjects and 

accounts, for md on accouot of which moueys are 

appropriated) 5'2511 contain more than 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 much thereof, 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 law upon one 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, 185 S.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 Company Y. rkmericaa Indemnity Company, 7 

General Opinion VW-225 (:?157). 

Attorney 

House Bill No. 1673 there ore violates 

article III. section 35 of the Texas Constitution. and it is void 

insofar as it attempts to amend article 6252-11~. V.T.C.S. Arnold v. 

Leonard, 273 S.W. 799 (Tsex. 1925). 

Legislative history enables us to determine vhy the caption of 

House Bill No. 1673 is deiective. The bill as introduced had the 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. 1718 
Mr. Vernon H. Arrell - Page 3 (a-376) 

Eouse. A Senate floor amendment iocluded the amendments to 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. The House adopted the Senate amendments snd Eouae Bill No. 

1673 __._ carrled ---~~~~ the .~~~ same ~~ tith when finally enacted aa when it vas 

introduced. See generally Gulf Insurance Cbmpany V. James. 185 S.W.2d 

966 (Tex. 1945): Attorney G<zeral Opinion WW-225 (1957) (title defects 

arising when biil was amended during 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. See Culberson v. Ashford, 18 S.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’ maana the practice of 

studying an exist.l.ag or a proposed operation or 

project of an agency and advising 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 aod procedures and to recommend more 

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 Commuaity Affairs 

to audit federal grants made to local entities. 

On the basis of Attorney General Opinion R-1173 and the 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. 1719 
Hr. 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 Texa6 Constitution and House Bill 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 

RICR GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Covmlttec! 

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

Prepared by Suean L. Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITl'RE 

Rick Gilpin. Chairman 

Colin Carl 

Susan GardEon 

Tony Guillory 

Jim Woelllnger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

Sarah Woelk 

p. 1721