DAN MORALES 

Al-rORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tiy JTMmep @heral 

%tate of Okxae 

April 26.1993 

Honorable James E. “Pete” Lsney 

SW= 

Opiion No. DM-219 

Texas House of RepP.O. Box 2910 

Austin, Texss 787682910 

Re: Authority of the Board of Licensure 

for Nursing Home Administrstors to charge 

and “collect a SlO.00 fee for each 

. . &umstretor-psrdcipsnt in ell educstion 

tames approved by the -1 for 

wntinuing education units” (RQ-492) 

DearMr. speaker: 

You ask the folhnving questions: 

Under current g overning statutes, does the Board of 

Liwnsure for Nursing Home Administmtors (TBLNHA) have 

euthority to cokct a SlO fee for eech sdministrstor-paticipsnt in sll 

education coursesapprovedbytheTBLNHAforcontir&g 

education units (CBUs) when: 

-amenthefeeisinadditiontothefeechargedbyTBLNHA 

to the course provider for spprovsl of the course for 

CEUs; 

-whenthecourseptwidaistheentitytobeessessedend 

responsii~e for payment of the fee, snd 

-when TBLNHA will deny credit to the sdministrstorps$ipsnt for the course completed if the SlO fee is not 

Uttdatheci rwmstanws you descrii, TBLNHA imposes the SlO fee on the ‘wurse 

provida,” which then passes along the charge to the “participant.” 

Section 10 of the board’s ensbhng statute, article 44424 V.T.C.S., describes 

& fees which the board is euthorized to sssess, including sn initial licensing fee of not 

more then S150.00, sn exsminstion fee of not more thsn S150.00, a biennisl licensing fee 

p. 1149 
Honorable James E. “Pete” Laney - Page 2 (DM-219) 

of not more than Sl50.00, and a penalty of SSO.00 for renewal of a license which has been 

expired for more than 30 days. In addition, subsection 6(7) directs the board to 

conduct or cause to be conducted, one or more courses of instruction 

andtrainhgsuiBcienttomeetthere+irementsofthisAct,make 

provisions for the wnduct of au& wursesandtheirdbuityto 

residents of this State, and establish and cdlccr reasomble fees to be 

@twited inta the genemljmd for inandion or tining courses 

conducfed~theboardin~ &ennined by the baa& to be 

~~cirnttowvrr~ho~~es,~unleapitfindsthattl&rr 

areasu&kntnumbexof wurseswnductedbyotherswithinthis 

StatetomeettheneedsoftheState. Inlieutherwftheboardmay 

approve wurses wnducted within and without the State as sutlicient 

tomeettheeducationandtrsiningrequkments of this Act. 

V.T.C.S. art. 4442d 5 6(7) (emphasis added). As the italicized language d-es, 

the board is anpowered to “collect reasonable fees” for wntiwing education co- but 

On& for those “instruction wurseswnductedbytheboard.” whenthewursesare 

“conducted by om” the statutory language wnks no authority on the boardto impose 

fees of any kind w-. 

Youindicate~theboardbdimsthat~~~tosPseYltheproporedSlO 

Ckrgeforwnthingeducationwurseswnductedbyoutside sourwderiveshm 

section 8 of article 4442d. Section 8 is a general rule-making provision. It empowers the 

board”tomakenrlesud~o~aotiaconsistentwithlawru~benecessaryor 

proper for the performance ofitsduties.” Aiongliwofopinionshmthisoffiwhaaheld, 

howmr,thatastatelicarsiag~mrywtprescn’beMyfwwhichisnotspocifically 

authorized by statute. In Attorney Owed Opinion H-669 (1975). for example, this office 

declaredthattheBoardofl)entrrl~anrsnotanpoweredtoimposcf#sondental 

~~inthelbsmceofspecificItannoryauthorizatontodoso. Likewise,in 

Attorney General Opiion H-443 (1974). the attorney genesal stated that the Structural 

Pest Control Board was not pemhted to assess an additional charge for administering its 

licensing exdnatio~~ Fii, in Attorney General Opiion H-897 (1976), this office 

assated that the Depmmnt of Labor and Standards was without authority to conduct 

“shop surveys’ of boila manthhuera and charge a fw for doing so. See aho Attomey 

General Opinion V-1426 (1952). Each of these. prior opinions relies on the court’s 

decision in Nueces Counry v. Currington, 162 S.W.2d 687 (Tar. 1942). which de&red 

that 

unless a fw is provided by law for an official tice required to be 

performed snd the amount thereof tied by law, none can lawtidly be 

charged therrfor. 

Id. at 688; see alsa AkG& v. City of Rock&ale, 246 S.W. 654 (Tex. 1922). 

p. 1150 
Honorable James E. “Pete” Laney - Page 3 (DM-2 19) 

In the situation you pose, a number of permissible fees are specified by statute, but 

there is no statutory authorization for the board to impose a $10.00 charge in connection 

with wntinuing education courses which are conducted, not by the board itself, but by 

outside sources. It is our opinion, therefore, that the Board of Licensure for Nursing 

Home Administrators may not assess and wllect the fees in question. 

SUMMARY 

The Board of Liccnsure for Nursing Home Administrators is not 

authorixed to impose and wllect a SlO.00 fee from administrators or 

participants in courses conducted by outside sources and approved 

by the board as wntinuii education units. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney Gwerd of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney Germal 

MARYKELLER 

Deputy Attorney GcneralforLitigation 

RENEAHICKS 

state solicitor 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opiion Committee 

Pmpared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attomeyoend 

p. 1151