Axisx-mr 11. P'wAS April 6, 1965~

Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion No. C-416 Commissioner of Education Texas EducationAgency Re: Travel expense of State Austin, Texas employees in returning to headqua~rters

daily or on Dear Dr. Edgar: weekends.

Your request for an opinion reads as follows: "The Texas EducationAgency requires personnel to travel together in the same vehicle when the performance of the official dutiespermit without injuring the efficiency of the organizationand when it is more economical to the State, and to require a group to return to their official station on weekends and/or daily when the cost of transportation is less than the per diem cost ofmaintaining the entire group in the field. "TheDivision of SchoolAudits has consistently followed this policy. However, the Comptroller of PublicAccounts is refusing topay the January expense account for two of our field auditors, said expense accounts having been submitted in accordancewith the above statedpolicy. The Comptroller's letter of February 18, returning these two expense accounts to thisAgency, is attached for your information.
"We cite the followingexamples to illustrate the application of thisAgency's policy:
"Fe;;; Walston (Accompaniedby Cox and Gardner) il Pasadena to Austin on l/1.5/65 and return to Pasadena on l/18/65. 346 miles @ 84 $27.68
Less: Savings (perdiem) effected by requiringgroup to return to headquarters on weekend:

-1961-Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (C-416)

Friday, January 15 Saturday, January 1.6 $2.25 9.00 Sunday, January 17 9.00 Monday, January 18 Times three auditors: 2.25 (cox,Gardner,Walston) $22.50
Net saving to State "RalphFairbanks (Accompaniedby Welsh) Mileage Crowley to Austin on l/15/65 and return to Euless on l/18/65. 381 miles @ a#
Less: Savings effected by requiring group to return toheadquarters on weekend: Saturday, January 16 $9.00 Sunday, January 1 Monday, January 1i!i 9.00 Times two auditors: 2.25 (Welsh,Fairbanks) $20.25 Mileage from Crowley to Fort Worth for weekend 29 miles @ &?then to Euless,

Net saving to State $67.50 $39.82

$30.48

$40.50

2.32 $12.34

"It is our contention that under the terms of the currentAppropriationsAct and Attorney General's Opinion WW-660, we should be allowed to consider the entire group of persohnel rather than computingper diem and mileage cost on an individual basis. "Pleaseadvise whether thepolicy followed by thisAgency and themethod employed in filing expense claims where a group return is involved is in accor- .~~ dance with the legislative intent set out in the current General AppropriationsAct. If further information isdesired with respect to ourpolicy or practice herein,Mr. William H. Van Horn, our BusinessManager is available the,refor ."
In passing on the identicalpolicy outlined in your request, it was held in Attorney General'sOpinionWW-660 (1959)that the policy followedby theTexas EducationAgency and themethod employed in filing expense claims where a group return is involved
-1962-Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 3 (C-416)

is in accord with the legislative intent set out in the then current General AppropriationAct. The policy followedby the Texas EducationAgency and themethod employed in filing expense claims were identical to thepolicy and method of filing expense claims,outlinedin yourrequest. Therefore, the sole question to be determined is whether the legislative intent expressed~in House Bill 133, Acts of the 55th Legislature,Regular Session, 1957 (GeneralAppropriationAct of the 55th Legislature) was changed by the provisions of the current GeneralAppropriation Act of the 58th Legislature (HouseBill 86, Acts of,the 58th Legislature,Regular Session, 1963). The legislative intent expressed in the GeneralAppropriationAct of the 55th Legislaturewas stated in subdivisione of Section 29 ofArticle VI, as follows,:

"Heads of agencies, or employees to whom the authority has been o,fficially delegated, shall authorize travel and approve travel reimbursement claims. Heads of agencies shallplan the travel of all employeesunder theirauthority so as to achievemaximum economy and efficiency.

. . ." Subdivision c of Section 13 ofArticle V of the current General AppropriationAct of the 58th Legislature states the legislative intent in the following language:

"Heads of agencies shallplan the travel of all employees under their authority so as to achievemaximum economy and efficiency. Travel expenses may be reimbursed from the appropriations made in thisAct only where thepurposes of travel performed are clearly for~theconduct of the State's official business and in consonancewith the legal responsibilitiesof then agency of the State represented."
It is thus noted that ,thelegislative intent in both appropriation bills is expressed in substantiallyidentical language and, therefore, therehas been no change in legislative intent regarding traveling expense incurredby a group in returning to headquarters daily or on weekends. The conflict in interpretationbetween the,TexasEducation Agency and the Comptroller of Public Accounts resultsnot from the legislative intent expressed in subdivisionc of Section 13 of Article V of the current GeneralAppropriationAct, but rather concerning theprovisions ,ofsubdivision f of Section 15 of Article V of the current GeneralAppropriationAct of the 58th Legislature,

-1963-Hon. 3. W. Edgar, page 4 (c-416)

which reads as follows:

I,

. . . "A traveling State employeemay'return to his headquartersdaily or on the weekend rather than stay out at State's expense and by so doing the expense involved shall be consideredas State business,providing however, that the actual expenses involved includingper diem,mileage, or public transportation in returning to headquarters daily or on weekends shallnever exceed theper diem allowance the employee would have receivedhad he remained at his post of duty. "State'sbusiness as is applied to daily round trips, shall be determinedby computing the transportation allowance and per diem on a daily basis, including the first and last day of the trip, a,nd when the transportationallowance and per diem for that day exceeds $9.00per day, only $9.00 for that day will be,allowed." Attorney General's Opinion WW-660, supra,after determining the intent of the Legislature with regard to travel expenses and per diem allowance, as outlinedabove, construed theprovisions of subdivisiong of Section 31 of Article VI of the then current General AppropriationAct, as follows:

"Keeping the foregoing statements inmind, let us now consider the followingportion of Section 31 (g) of Article VI of theAppropriationAct: "'Exceptwhen it is cheaper, a traveling State employeemay return to his headquarters daily or on the week-end rather than stay out at State's expense; cheaper -- as it applies to daily round trips shall be determinedby computing themileage and per diem on a daily basis and the entiremileage and per diem on any one day shall not exceed the per diem allowance of $8.002 "Thus, in our opinion, there can be no doubt that the Legislature intended, and has expressed its intent,-thateconom and efficient shall be

+ / the nrimarv consi erafions in he nlanning of and reimbursement for the travel of State employees in the performance of their duties.

-1964-Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 5 (c-416)

"Theportion of Section 31(g) quoted above makes it clear that an employee travelingalone may make daily round trips only when the round tripmileage allowance and per diem does not exceed his maximum per diem allowance of $8.00.
"Let us now consider the situationwhere two or more State employees are traveling.togetherby private conveyance. As we have pointed out above, group travel of thisnature was intended by the Legislature; only, one of the group shall receive a travel allowance and all may receiveperdiem. The maximum per diem would be $8.00 times the number of employees. If themileage allowance for a daily round ,trip, plus whatever the the group would be, does not exceed $KO$iZm2r the number of employees~ in the group, it would not be as economical for the group to.stay out at State's expense as it would be to return to headquarters. "If a round trip is not made, the obvious result in such a situation is a greater expenditure of State funds. This would not be in keepingwith the express intent of the Legislature to effectuate a policy of economy and efficiencywith ‘regardto the travel of State employees. "Therefore, in our opinion, considering the Legislature's express authority for group travel in Section 30(a),.the Legislature intended that such group travel be accomplishedwith economy and efficiency and that group travelwith regard to daily round trups be governed by theprovisions of Section 31(g) quoted above. That is to say, that even though the wording of this provision regarding daily .roundtrips speaks of 'employee'in the singular, it is our opinion that the Legislature intended that 'employee'include employees traveling in a group and that the $8.00per diem referred to in Section 31(g) means $8.00per diemper member of the group." It is our opinion that the construction of the GeneralAppropriation Act of the 55th Legislatureby Attorney General's Opinion WW-660 is equally applicable to theGeneral AppropriationA,ctof the 58th Legislature,and subdivis,ion f of Section 15, above-quoted, merely states themethod of computing traveling expense incurred in returning to headquarters, rather than denying to the heads of

-1965-Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 6 (c-416)

agencies quarters provided the authority to authorize employees to return to headso as to achieve themaximum economy and efficiency,as in subdivisionc of Section 13. In otherwords, in the event an individual; rather than & group, returns to headquarters either daily or on weekends, such individual'sper diem,mileage or public transportation in returning to headquarters 1,slimited to the maximum of $9.00 for that day by the'provisionsof subdivision f of Section 15. In the instant case, however, a group, rather than an individual, returned to headqua~rters and the driver oh the car is therefore entitlednot only to his per diem, but also mileage. The remainder of the group is entitled to only per diem, for that day.
You are thereforeadvised that the, policy followed by the Texas EducationAgency where a group return is involved is in accord with the intent of the Legislature; To prohibit the head of a department from considering the entire group of personnel and requiring him to computeper diem and mileage cost on an individual ba,sis would result in a greater expenditure of State funds, contrary to the express intent of the Legislature. Therefore, you are advised that the travel expense claims outlined in your request are payable. SUMMARY

The policy followed by the Texas Education Agency where a group return to headquarters 16 involved, of considering the entire group of personnel rather than computingper diem and mileage cost on an individualbasis is~in accord with the'intent of the Legislature that travel of State employees be accomplishedwith economy and efficiency.
Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

JR:ms John Reeves Assistant

-1966-I

.

Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 7 (C-416)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman Malcolm L. Quick H. Grady Chandler Joe Long W. 0. Shultz
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Stanton Stone

-1967-