. . . *



### HE A ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

MnY 14, 1957.

Bonor~ble Loulr Dugat, Jr. chairma!, Coiitlngedt Expense Committee, Houre d Re’@resentatives, Aurtla, Texar
. opinionno. ww-131

Dear Mr. Dugae: Re: Constitutionalityof H.S .R. 284, pertaining to the payment of official telephone calla by Members bf the Iioi~ae, during the Interim,beginning immediately following sine die adjournmentof the 55th Legielature and ending at the convening of the 56th Legislature.
In your letter of May 6, 1957, you have requested an official opinion of this Department, concerning the conetitut~ionality

of Rouse Simple ResolutionNo. 284. You further atate in your letter that:

“Inasmuchas the wording and provisions of this resolution differ somewhat from similar resolutions submitted for oplnlons in the past, a new opinion is desired relative to the provlsioue of House Simple Resolution no. 284 of the 55th Legialature

.”
House Simple Resolution No. 284 reads as follows:
“BE IT RBSOLVRD by the Texas House of Representatives,That the Committee on Contingent Expense be directed to appropriate from the Contingent Expense Fund whatever sums shall be necessary to pay for official telephone calls by Members of theHouse of Representatives during the Interim, beginning immediately following sine die adjournment of the Fifty-fifth Legislature and ending at the convening of the Fifty-sixth Legislature. It Is provided,however, that no Member shall be.. .

Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., Page 2 WW-131

allowed more than Twelve Dollars ($12) monthly for telephone calls, and it is further provided that no telephone expense other than official callswhich are properly charged to the Member's official toll credit cards shall begpaidby the Committee. The Contingent Expense Committee shall make any necessary rules or regulations concerning interim telephone calls **of** Members and shall have full authority to enforce such rules in whatever manner they deem necessary or advisable."
You are no doubt familiarwith the previous oplnions deliveredby thisDepartment relating to the constitutionality of similar resolutions. We shall Include In this opinion a comprehensivesurvey of the rationale contained in several of these prior opinions.

We are unable to find **any** distinctionbetween the resolutionhere being cotisldered and thatdiscussed la Attorney General's OpinionNo. MS-43. Both,contain a provision relating to paymentby a toll credit card method. Attorney General's OpinionMS-43 holds that expenditures of this nature would~not be a lawful and properuse Of State funds. It was therein stated:

"Theultimate issue posed is whether the expenseshere authorized to be paid are 'legislatlve~ expenses or 'personal'expeases of the members. This office haa,oa aumerous occasions, expressed ltself.:on analogous ques- ~t~lons

. In every instancewe have adhered to the rule that compensation of Legislators Is speaified and limitedby Section 24 of Article III of the Texas Constitution;and further, that reimbursememt for 'personal'as opposed to lleglslative'expeases is in the nature of exaessive and unauthorized compensation;and that the only expenses that are legislative are those that relate to public purposes coaceraedwith duties imposedby law on members Attorney Geaeral's &%%:'aiii% (1953) V-772 (1949), v-211 (19472,v-84 (194+ In answering your question we are guided not only by the principles set forth in the cited Opinions,but we areHonorable LouisDugas, Jr., Page 3

also coatrolled tI?Kl).wherein ww-131

by Attorney General’s Opiaio~HO. 0-3778 a similar resolution of the 47th Lsglsla-

. - ._ hire 6s held **invalid.** In that instance tne resolut10n purported to autho,rise a rtipulated,monthly sum to each Senator during the periodbetween sessioas.

n

. . .forthe purpose of defraying the expease of hiring a part-time stanographer to be used oaly for the purpose of traasadtingbusiness Incident to his office at State Seaator, aad only for State business; and further for the purpose of defraylag the expense of telephone, telegraphand postage used oaly in State busiaess and incident to his offl&e,as State Seaator.“[Emphasisadded) ~OpinionHo. 0-3778 contalas a thoroughand exhaustive review of the existing authorities,aa well as a complete snd accurate analysis of the nature of “legislative” aid ‘personal”expenses of Lsgislators. This Opinionreads in part as,follows:

“It is believed that the matter of legislativeand personal expensemay be rationalizedas follows. Legislative expense is that iacldeat to the workings of the Legislature as an actual law-makingbody, a8 a whole, as the Legislature itself,when in session; through a special committee delegated by the Legislaturewhile la sessioa to work on a legislativematter between sessloas; .throughpersonnel employed to close matters after adjourameat; or through employees malatalned between sessioas for the Care of the legislativehalls or for maintenance of a central office or clearinghouse for legislativematters between sessionse These expenses are for the mutual benefit of all msmbera -- for the Legislature Itself. “Personalexpense, on the other haad, Is that Incurred,or which may be incurred,by a Member between sessionsworking uader his Owa will, la his owa discretion and as **a** matter of iladlvidual

eaterprise -- not as a part of the Legislature In session or under extraordiaary assignmentfrom the body between sessions.Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., Page 

### 4 w-131

"If, therefore,aa allowance of expenses to individualmembers of the Legislature during a sosalon, or while on a committee assignmeat between sessions, is presumtively legislative expense, it does not follow that an expense allowaace to eachmember indiscriminatelybetween sessions is likewise so. To the contrary, in our opinion the latter is presumptivelypersonal expense. "Essentiallythis view is grounded upon the historical and constitutional concept of a State legislative office, togetherwith the praaticalworkings of the constitutional methods with reference thereto,and the discernibleweight of the cases in support of such conclusion." The effect of these previous opinions Is that~ such expense canaot be paid out of public funds, and this prohibition applies whether the funds are paid directly to the Lsgislator, as in Opinion o-3778, or to a companywith whom he incurs the debt througha credit card device, as was the case la OpinionNo. W-43.

It is, therefore, our opinioa that the allowanceby House Simple Resolution Ho. 284 of the 55th Legislature, of not to exceed TweIve Dollars ($12.00)monthly, for official telephone calls by Members of the House of Representatives, during the Interim,beginning immediately following sine die adjourameat of the 55th Legislature, and ending at the convening of the 56th Legislature,whether such funds are paid directly to a Legislator or to a companywith whom he incurs the debt through a credit card device, is invalidand would not constitutea lawful uae of State funds.
SUMMARY
House Simple ResolutionNo. 284, authorizing an expenditure of not to exceed Twelve Dollars ($12.00)monthly, for payment from the Contingent Expense Fund for official telephone calls by the Members of theHouse of Representatives, during the Interim,beginning immediately followlag sine die adjournmeat of the 55th Legislatureand eadiag at the convening of the 56th Legislature,whether such funds are paid directly to the Legislator, or to a companywith whom he Incurs a debt througha_. ._

Honorable Louis Dugas, Jr., 

### Page 5 ww-131

credit card device, is unconstitutional as an unlawful use of State Funds.
Yours very truly,
WILL WIISOR Attorney General



### k? B. H. Timminu, Jr. ? Assistaat BHT:pf:rh
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE.
H. Grady Chandler,

Chairman JamesW. Wllsoa Fred Werkenthin Ralph R. Rash
REVIEWEDFORTREATTORERYGENRRAL By: Geo. P. Blackburn