Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion No. 

### WW-660

Commissioner of Education Texas Education Agency Re: Whether the policy 201 East 11th Street followed by the Austin, Texas Texas Education Agency and the method employed in filing expense claims where a group return is involved is In accordance with the legislative intent set out in the current General Dear Dr. Edgar: Appropriation Act.

You have requested our opinion regarding
a question predicated upon the following facts which we quote from your letter:

"The Texas Education Agency requires personnel to travel together in the same vehicle when the performance of the official duties permit without injuring the efficiency of the organization and when it is more economical to the state, and to require a group to return to their official station on week-ends and/or daily when the co& of transportation is less than the per diem cost of maintaining the entire group in the field. See,: H.B. 

### 133,Acts 55th Legislature, R.S. (Appropriation Bill) General Provisions Section 31g, at pg. 

### 1155.

"The Division of School Audits has consistently followed this policy. However, the Comptroller of PublicHonorable J. W. Edgar, page 2 

### (W-660)

Accounts is refusing to pay'the April expense account for one of
our field auditors, said expense account having been submitted in accordance with the above stated policy. The Comptroller contends that the definition of 'cheaper'
as shown in Sec. jig, supra, refers to one employee, and that we cannot group employees.

. . .'

The question you pose Is as follows?
II whether the policy followed by-this agency and the method employed in filing expense claims where a group return la involved Is in acoordance with the legislative Intent set out In the current General Appropriation Act."

In determining the intent of the Leglslature with regard to travel expense and per diem allowance for State employees we must look to the wording of House Bill No. 

### 133,Acts of the 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Appropriation Act.

Section 29(e) of Article VI of the General Provisions of the Appropriation Act provides that the "heads of agencies shall plan the travel of all employees under their aut$ority so as to achieve maximum economy and efficiency.

Section 30(a) of Article VI of the General Proxisions of the Appropriation Act provides that where

. . . two or more employees travel in a single private conveyance, only one shall receive a transporatlon allowance, but this provision shall not preclude each traveler from receiving a per diem allowance ; thus further showing
a legislative intent toward economy by allowing only one employee a transportation allowance where a group travels together, while allowing all of the employees a per diem allowante.

### HonorableJ. W. Edgar,Page 3 (WW-660)

Keepingthe foregoingBtatemetite in mind, letUB now considerthe followingportionof Section31 (g) of ArticleVI of the Appropriation Act:
"Exceptwhen it is cheaper,a travelingState employeemay return to his headquartersdaily or on the week-endrather than etay out at State'sexpense;cheaper-- as It applies to dailyround trips shall be determinedby aomputingthemlleage and per diem on 

### a ~dally baels and the entiremileageand per diem
on any 

### one day shallnot exceed the per diem allowanceof $8.00."
Thus, in our opinion,there can be no doubt that the Legislatureintended,and has expressedlta intent, ~~~~se;gn;cm~

a.:~~;ff++$v3y

ahallbe the primaryconslderaand reimbursement

for the travel of State employeesin the performanaeof their duties.

The portionof Seation 31(g)quotedabovemakes it alear that an employeetravelingalonemay make daily round trlpa onlywhen the round tripmileageallowanceand per diem does not exceedhis m&xlmumper diem allowanceof $8.00.

Let us now aonaiderthe situationwhere two or more State employeesare travelingtogetherby privateconveyance. As we have pointedout above,group travel of this naturewas intendedby the Legislature;only one of the group shallreceive a travelallowanceand allmay receivedper diem. The maximumper diemwouldbe $8.00 times the number of employees. If themileageallowanaefor a dally round trip,plue whatever the per diem for the groupwouldbe, doesnot exceed $8.00 times the number of employeesIn the group, it would not be as eaonomiaalfor the group to stay out at State's expenseas it would be to returnto headquarters.

If a round trip is not made, the obviousresultin such a situationis a greater expenditureof State funds. Thiswould not be in keepingwith the expressIntentof the Legislatureto effectuatea poliay of eaonomyand efficiency with regard to the travel of State employees.Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 4 (WW-660)

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 accomplished with ,economy and efficiency and that group travel with regard to daily round trips be governed by the provision of Section 31(g) quoted above. That is to say, that even though the wording of this provision governing dally round trips speaks of 'employee" in the singular, in our opinion the Legislature Intended that 'employee" lnelude employees traveling in a group and that the 8.00 per diem referred to,in Section 31(g) means 8.00 per diem per member of the group.

We therefore answer your question by saying that the policy followed by the Texas Education Agency and the method employed in filing expense claims where
a group return is involved is In accord with the legislative Intent set out In the current General Appropriation Act.

SUMMARY

The Intent of the Legislature with regard to travel of State employees is that it be accomplished with economy and efficiency. This Intent applies~~ to an employee traveling,alone
as well as emnloyeea traveling in groups. Therefore, Section 31(g), H. B. 133, Acts of 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, p. 1155, whiah is the authorization for daily round trips, though worded in&he singular applies to group travel. The policy followed by the Texas Education Agency where a group returnHonorable J. W. Edgar, page 

### 5 (ww-660)

1s involved is in accord with the intent of the Legislature.

Very truly youra,

WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

WOS:rm

APPROVED:

OPINION COMMITTEE L. P. Lollar,~

Chairman

Marvin F. Sentell Charles D. Cabaniss Paul W. Floyd, Jr. Jack Goodman

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. V. Geppert