. -



# The Attorney General of Texas
December 31, 1982 MARK WHITE Attorney General
Supreme Court Building P. 0. BOX 12546 Austin. TX. 76711. 2546 5121475-2501 Telex 9101674-1367 Telecopier 512/4750266
1607 Main St., Suite 1400 Dallas, TX. 75201.4709 2141742.6944
4624 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 El Paso. TX. 79905-2793 9151533.3464
1220 Dallas Ave., Suite 202 HOUS,O”, TX. 77002-6986 7131650-0666
606 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 6061747-5236
4309 N. Tenth, Suite B McAlle”. TX. 78501.1685 5121662.4547
200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797 5121225-4191 ,4n Equal Opportunity1 Affirmative Action Employer Ms. Mary Jo McCrorey ExecutiveDirector OpinionNo.MW-585 State Board of Barber Examiners 5555N. Lamar, SuiteH-111 Austin, Texas 78751 I&?: Constructionof appropriations act rider on cooperation between State Board of Barber Examinersand Texas Cosmetology Commission Dear Ms. McCrorey: You have requested our opinion as to the construction of the following appropriations act rider enacted by the Sixty-seventh Legislature:It is the intent of the [llegislaturethat an

interagencycontract shallbe executedbetween the State Board of Barber Examiners and the Texas Cosmetology Commission to reduce duplication of activities in inspections, enforcement and examination. GeneralAppropriationsAct, Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 875, art. I, at 3376. You ask the followingquestion concerningthis rider: Is the Barber Board obligated by virtue of the above-quotedportion of the appropriationsbill to enter into an interagency contract with the Cosmetology Commission providing for crossover inspectionsor is a good-faitheffort to do so all that ismandated? In order to answer your question,we must first determinewhether or not this rider is a valid enactment. Article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitutionhas long been construed to prohibit the enactment of general legislationwithin a general appropriations bill. Moore V. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559, 561-62 (Tex. 1946). A rider to a general appropriationsbill isvalid if its only effect is to "detail, limit, or restrict the use of the

p. 2172Ms. Mary Jo McCrorey - Page 2 (Mw-585)

funds... therein appropriated." Attorney General Opinions MU-389 (1981);MW-51 (1979);V-1253 (1951). As this office said in Attorney GeneralOpinionV-1254 (1951):



### [iln addition to appropriating fll0*l?y and stipulatingthe amount,manner, and purpose of the various items of expenditure, a general appropriationbill may contain any provisions or riderswhich detail, limit,or restrict theuse of the funds or otherwise insure that the money is spent for the required activity for which it is therein appropriated, if the provisions or riders are necessarily connected with and incidental to the appropriation and use of the funds, and provided they do not conflict with general legislation. In Attorney General Opinion MW-51 (1979), we considered the followingrider:

The State Board of Control shall establish a maximum and a minimum monthly charge for state employee parking of $16 and $6 respectively for facilitieswithin its jurisdiction. The Board is authorized to charge varying rates within the above limitationsbased upon the type and location of parking space made available accepted by a state employee. The opinionheld that this riderwas invalid, since it:

neither appropriates nor details, limits or restricts the use of funds. It is instead a generaldirective to the State Board of Control to take certain affirmative action, and it may not validly be included in the General Appropriations Act. Accordingly, the Board of Control has the authority to setparking ratesunder the authority .granted it by section 3(g) of article 678e, V.T.C.S., and it is not limited to theminimum and maximum rates set out in the appropriationsact. In our opinion, the rider at issue here is likewise deficient. It does not appropriate any funds nor does it detail, limit or restrict the use of funds appropriated elsewhere. Rather, it is a generaldirective to the StateBoard of Barber Examinersand the Texas Cosmetology Commission to take specific affirmative action. As such, it may not validly be includedwithin an appropriations act. It is our opinion that, since the rider in question constitutes general

p. 2173Ms. Mary Jo McCrorey - Page 3 (MW-585)

legislation, it is violative ofparticleIII, section 35 of the Texas Constitution, and hence, void and of no effect. As an invalid provision, it cannot require the Barber Board to take any action at all, either to actually enter into a contractor to make a good faith effort to do so. SUMMARY

A rider to the general appropriations act requiring cooperationbetween the State Board of Barber Examiners and the Texas Cosmetology Commission constitutesan invalidattempt to enact general legislationwithin an appropriationsbill, in contraventionof article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution. It is therefore void and of no effect.

MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas JOHNW. FAINTER,JR. FirstAssistantAttorney General RICHARD E. GRAY III ExecutiveAssistantAttorney General Preparedby Rick Gilpin AssistantAttorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE SusanL. Garrison,Chairman Jon Bible Rick Gilpin ShawnJamail Jim Moellinger

p. 2174