. - 

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 

Executive Director 

Opinion No.MW-585 

State Board of Barber Examiners 

5555 N. Lamar, Suite H-111 

Austin, Texas 78751 

I&?: Construction of appropriations act rider on cooperation 

between State Board of Barber 

Examiners and 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 [llegislature that an 

interagency contract shall be executed between the 

State Board of Barber Examiners and the Texas 

Cosmetology Commission to reduce duplication of 

activities in inspections, enforcement and 

examination. 

General Appropriations Act, Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 875, art. I, at 

3376. 

You ask the following question concerning this rider: 

Is the Barber Board obligated by virtue of the 

above-quoted portion of the appropriations bill to 

enter into an interagency contract with the 

Cosmetology Commission providing for crossover 

inspections or is a good-faith effort to do so all 

that is mandated? 

In order to answer your question, we must first determine whether or 

not this rider is a valid enactment. 

Article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution has long been 

construed to prohibit the enactment of general legislation within a 

general appropriations bill. Moore V. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559, 

561-62 (Tex. 1946). A rider to a general appropriations bill is valid 

if its only effect is to "detail, limit, or restrict the use of the 

p. 2172 
Ms. 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 

General Opinion V-1254 (1951): 

[iln addition to appropriating fll0*l?y and 

stipulating the amount, manner, and purpose of the 

various items of expenditure, a general 

appropriation bill may contain any provisions or 

riders which detail, limit, or restrict the use 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 

following rider: 

The State Board of Control shall establish a 

maximum and a minimum monthly charge for state 

employee parking of $16 and $6 respectively for 

facilities within its jurisdiction. The Board is 

authorized to charge varying rates within the 

above limitations based upon the type and location 

of parking space made available accepted by a 

state employee. 

The opinion held that this rider was invalid, since it: 

neither appropriates nor details, limits or 

restricts the use of funds. It is instead a 

general directive 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 set parking rates under the authority 

.granted it by section 3(g) of article 678e, 

V.T.C.S., and it is not limited to the minimum and 

maximum rates set out in the appropriations act. 

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 

general directive to the State Board of Barber Examiners and the Texas 

Cosmetology Commission to take specific affirmative action. As such, 

it may not validly be included within an appropriations act. It is 

our opinion that, since the rider in question constitutes general 

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

legislation, it is violative of particle III, 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 contract or to make a good faith 

effort to do so. 

SUMMARY 

A rider to the general appropriations act 

requiring cooperation between the State Board of 

Barber Examiners and the Texas Cosmetology 

Commission constitutes an invalid attempt to enact 

general legislation within an appropriations bill, 

in contravention of article III, section 35 of the 

Texas Constitution. It is therefore void and of 

no effect. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RICHARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Rick Gilpin 

Shawn Jamail 

Jim Moellinger 

p. 2174