. . 

ORNEU ENERAL 

July 28, 1958 

Honorable Bill Allcorn 

Commissioner 

Qeneral Land Office 

Austin 14, Texas 

Dear Mr. Allcorn: 

Opinion No. WW-478 

Re: Questions concerning per 

diem and travel allowances 

for employees of Qeneral 

Land,Offlce - Sectlone 29, 

30 and 31 of House Bill No. 

133, Acts of the 55th Leglslature, Regular Session, 

1957. 

We have received your letter of April 29, in which 

you request our opinion on two questions concerning travel 

expense allowance for employees of the General Land Office, 

which reads as follows: 

"1 . Case Number One. 

"John T. Halsey Is employed by this office 

as a geophysical Inspector and his headquarters are in Palaclos, Texas. Mr. Halsey was 

assigned as a seismic Inspector In the Qulf 

of Mexloo aboard a boat operated by the Shell 

Oil Company and Instructed to report to that 

company and board the boat In Aransas Pass, 

Texas. In order to do so, he drove his car 

from his headquarters In Palaclos, Texas, to 

Aransas Pass, leaving the car parked at the 

docks at Aransas'Pass while on duty in the 

Qulf' of Mexico. The boat, at the close of 

Its seven day working period, did not return 

to Aranaas Pass, but Instead put In at the 

nearest port which was Freeport, Texas, from 

which work was to be conducted during the 

next work period. 

"On February 12, 1958, Mr. Halsey traveled by bus from Freeport to Aransas Pass, 
- . 

Honorable Bill Allcorn, Page 2 (W-478). 

picked up his car and drove back to Freeport, 

again boarding the boat for work In the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

"In submitting his travel expenses, Mr. 

Halsey Included his bus fare In the amount of 

$4.50 and cab fare of 50$ from the bus station In Aransas Pass to the docks. The State 

Comptroller has refused to approve this expense account, the $8.00 per diem account for 

February 12, as well as travel expenses for 

the 1.58 miles involved In moving the car from 

Aransas Pass to the new docking location In 

Freeport. 

"While the amount of money here Involved Is comparatively small, your opinion as to whether or not 

Mr. Halsey should be allowed his travel and per 

diem expenses is needed since the procedure followed 

by Mr. Halsey is quite often necessary for geophysical Inspectors. 

"2. Case Number Two. 

"J. M. Morgan is also employed by this 

office as a geophysical Inspector and his headquarters are In Bay City, Texas. 

"On March 1, 1958, Mr. Morgan was assigned 

to seismic inspection work with the National 

Geophysical Company In San Antonio Pay and the 

port being used by the Company was Seadrift, 

Texas. There were no accommodations In Seadrift, the nearest accommodations being in 

Port Lavaca. Mr. Morgan could have stayed In 

Port Lavaca at a cost to the State of $10.52 

per day ($8.00 per diem allowance plus mileage) or he oould return to his headquarters 

daily at a total cost to the State of $9.38 

per day~for mileage. 

"The particular section here Involved is a 

rider In Section 31 prescribing In somewhat 

ambiguous language that when it Is cheaper, a 
- - 

Honorable Bill Allcorn, Page 3 (W-478). ~' 

traveling State employee may'return to his 

headquarters dally. The rider goes further, 

however, and provides that expenses on a 

dally basis shall not exceed the per diem 

allowance of $8.00. Under astrict lnterpretatlon of this rider, I.e., a limitation of 

$8.00, the employee, if'he did not want to 

lose money, would have been forced to stay in 

Port Lavaca at a greater cost to the State. 

The question Is, then, whether the Leglslature Intended that Section 31 be given this 

strict Interpretation and thus result In a 

greater cost to the State. 

"Here again, your official opinion as to whether or not Mr. Morgan should be allowed his expenses 

Is needed because there are numerous,instances where 

geophysical inspectors cannot find suitable lodging 

in the port where the ship may be." 

The General Land Office assigns seismic Inspectors 

to private exploration boats manned by private crews and operated under company instructions In areas and upon schedules 

of the company's option. The inspector has no control over 

the operations, schedules, ports of departure or ports of 

return, but merely accompanies the boat on its exploration, 

and inspects and reports on the work done. When a seismic 

inspector is assigned to a particular boat for a certain period of time, his duties may requir e him tc be in several ports 

during the course of his Inspection. 

Your supplemental request shows that Land Office 

procedure requires the Inspector tc take certain records to 

the port of departure in order to have them available for his 

work. However, Land Office procedure prohibits the Inspector 

from taking any records, maps, etc. with him on the boat, 

except the actual dally report he is then completing. (This 

is to avoid the possibility of losing the information already 

compiled In the event of some disaster). It further seems 

apparent that It would be impractical to rent an office or 

hotel room In which to keep the records and maps, because the 

Inspector usually stays out In the Gulf of Mexico for a period 

of seven to ten days. You further stated, "These items . . . 
- - 

Honorable Bill Allcorn, Page 4 (W-478). 

are left locked In the cars". Your supplemental request says, 

In part: 

"The working program of geophysical Inspectors 

Is unpredictable because of weather and other conditions and the inspector often finds It necessary 

to make an overnight trip to move his car, his personal belongings, maps and other records to,,a 

different location along the coast. . . . 

Sections 29, 29(f), 30(a) and 31(b) of House Bill 

133, Acts of the 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, are 

applicable in determining the propriety of making the travel 

expense and per diem payments In question. 

The expense account of Mr. Halsey shows that on the 

12th day of February, 1958, he traveled from Freeport to Aransas Pass to pick up his vehicle (left there when he was working out of Aransas Pass). Corresponding travel allowances are 

claimed for bus travel to Aransas Pass, taxi fare in Aransas 

Pass and mileage back to Freeport. The requirements of a 

seismic inspector are somewhat peculiar in that neither the 

Inspector, nor the State has any control over where his work 

will take him, or, Indeed, where any one boat trip will take 

him. 

Since this assigned duty required him to leave his 

designated headquarters, travel to and be In Aransas Pass to 

work with the boat while there, and to have certain maps and 

records with him which could not be taken out on the boat; and 

also to travel to and be In Freeport to work with the boat 

while there and have the maps and reaords with him there, as 

well, we are of the opinion that the travel to Aransas Pass and 

then to Freeport was necessarily incident to such assignment, 

In those Instances where it was necessary to use his automobile 

In which to safely keep such records. Whether it was necessary 

to leave the car at the dock In which to store the records Is 

a fact question, upon which this office cannot pass. We do 

not conceive It to be the Intent of the Legislature to penalize 

a State employee for performing his assigned duties in the only 

manner possible or practical under the circumstances. We are 

of the opinion that the travel allowance should be paid. 

From the expense account, It is apparent that on 
. 

Honorable Bill Allcorn, Page 5 (W-478). 

certain days the boat did not go out, eftherbecause of bad 

weather or because the crew had a day off. During this time, 

the Inspector stood by awaiting another trip. The fact that 

he was not able to inspect was entirely beyond his control or 

the control of the State. He Was required to be away from 

his designated headquarters on an official assignment during 

this time, and he, therefore, should receive his per diem 

allowance. It may be true that such an employee could be 

required to return to his designated headquarters during 

these Idle periods, but this 1s an administrative decision, 

and not for our consideration here. 

!The employee In question arrived In Freeport on 

February 9, 1958, and was required to stand by on the lOth, 

11th and 12th of February. He left Freeport for another 

Inspection on February 13th. In our opinion, the employee 

would be entitled to per diem for the 12th,of' February, just 

as he was on the 10th and llth, since his assignment was 

incomplete, and he had not officially returned to his designated headquarters. 

Insofar as Case Number Two Is concerned, Section 

31(g) speclflcally provides that: 

"Except that when it Is cheaper, a traveling 

state employee may return to his headquarters 

dally or on the weekend rather than stay out at 

State's expense; cheaper--as It applies to dally 

round trips shall be determined by computing the 

mileage and per diem on a dally basis and the 

entire mileage and per diem on any one dayTall 

not exceed the per diem allowance of $8.00. 

. . . (tiphasls added). 

Under certain circumstances It might be advantageous to the State to have the mployee return to his designated 

headquarters, rather than seek lodging at or near his post of 

duty. If the employee returns to his designated headquarters 

each ni 

tion 31 

$8.00. 

$" 

t, he may be compensated, but the provisions of Secg) make It clear that the maximum he may be paid Is 

The provisions of the Appropriation Bill are explicit 

In this respect. We are of the opinion that, even though 

particular Instances may arise wherein such provision forces 

the employee to remain away from his designated headquarters, 
Honorable Bill Allcorn, Page 6 (W-478). 

thereby incurring expenses greater than if he came home each 

night, this Is for the determination of the Legislature In 

promulgating the rules and regulations under which State 

employees are reimbursed their travel expenses, and we are 

unable to write exceptions into the Appropriation Bill. The 

Section to which you refer must be strictly aonstrued, and 

the result Is as you point out in your request. 

SUMMARY 

The travel allowances and per diem claimed 

by a selsmlc Inspector should be paid when 

the travel was necessary to the performance of his assignment, even though it may 

have been occasioned by circumstances beyond his control or control of the State; 

when a State employee returns to his 

designated headquarters daily or on the 

week end, rather than stay out at State's 

expense, the entire mileage and per diem 

on any one day shall not exceed the per 

diem allowance of $8.00. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

TIM:jl 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

By&&^""3~& 

Tom I. McFarllng 

Assistant 

L. P. Lollar, Chairman 

Wayland C. Rivers, Jr. 

Jot Hodges, Jr. 

Riley Eugene Fletcher 

J. W. Wheeler 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 

W. V. Geppert