December 29, 1986 

Honorable Oscar H. Mauzy Opinion No. .JM-597 

Chairman 

committee on Jurisprudence 

Texas State Senate 

Re: Legality under article 6252-9f, 

V.T.C.S., of political campaign 

P. 0. Box 12068 activities by community college 

Austin, Texas 78711 students as optional course work 

assignment 

Dear Senator Mauzy: 

You request an opinion about the application of article 6252-9f, 

V.T.C.S., which prohibits state employees from engaging in certain 

political activities, to political campaign activities undertaken by 

community college students as an optional assignment in a government 

course. Article 6252-9f, V.T.C.S., provides in part: 

sec. 2. Except as expressly prohibited by this 

Act, a state employee has the full rights of 

freedom of association and political participation 

guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. 

Sec. 3. (a) A state employee may not: 

(1) use official authority or influence or 

permit the use of a program administered by the 

state to interfere with or affect the result of an 

election or nomination of a candidate, or to 

achieve any other political purpose; or 

(7-I coerce, attempt to coerce, command, 

restrict, attempt to restrict, or prevent the 

payment, loan, or contribution of any thing of 

value to a person or political organization for a 

political purpose. 

(b) For purposes of this section, a state 

employee does not interfere with or affect the 

results of an election or nomination if the 

employee's conduct is permitted by a law relating 

to his office or employment and is not otherwise 

unlawful. 

p. 2668 
Honorable Oscar H. Mausy - Page 2 (JM-597) 

Sec. 4. A state employee who violates Section 

3 of this Act is subject to immediate termination 

of employment. 

You enclose a memo written by the attorney of a public community 

college which states that section 3 of article 6252-9f. V.T.C.S.. 

brings into question the practice of allowing students to work in 

political campaigns as optional assignments in government courses. 

The memo recommends that no candidate or political party should have a 

disproportionate number of students from a class working in a campaign 

-- that is, an approximately equal number of students should work for 

each of two candidates running for the same office. Your two questions 

are directed at this recommendation: 

Does the prohibition against certain political 

activity by state employees in article 6252-9f. 

section 3(a)(l) in turn limit the freedom of a 

student in a state-supported school's government 

class to choose a particular political campaign to 

work for when attaining credit in an internship 

program? 

If not, does article 6252-9f. section 3(a)(l) 

prohibit a teacher or school .administrator from 

specifying a particular campaign, or from allocating students at random, more or less equally 

among competing campaigns, i.e., would such an 

allocation method constitur . . 'use [of] 

official authority or influence . . . to interfere 

with or affect the result of an election or 

nomination of a candidate?' 

Before we can reach questions about how such internship programs may 

be conducted, we must deal with the threshold issue: Whether section 

3(a) of article 6252-9f, V.T.C.S., absolutely prohibits teachers, 

administrators, and other employees of state supported schools from 

offering optional course work which involves student participation in 

political campaigns. We turn to an examination of article 6252-9f, 

V.T.C.S., and the prohibitions of section 3 of that statute. 

The legislature enacted article 6252-9f, V.T.C.S., in 1983 as 

Senate Bill No. 762. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 579, at 3763. The 

bill was recommended by the Public Servant Standards of Conduct 

Advisory Committee established by the Sixty-seventh Legislature. Acts 

1981, 67th Leg., ch. 151, at 370. The Advisory Committee stated in 

its final report that Senate Bill No. 762 removed the existing 

restrictions on political activity of state employees, except for 

employees of the Department of Public Safety, and outlines the extent 

to which all employees may participate in political activity. Final 

Report of the Public Servant Standards of Conduct Advisory Committee 

p. 2669 
Eonorable Oscar H. Mausy - Page 3 / (JM-597) 

at IA (August 1983). The report expressed the opinion that the United 

States Constitution protected political activity of public employees 

to the extent that the activity occurs outside of office hours and 

does not involve official duties or entail use of state property. 

Background Report on Proposed Changes to Law Concerning Political 

Activity of State Employees, completed in Final Report of the Public 

Servant Standards of Conduct Advisory Committee at IB (August 1983); 

see generally, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); Broadrick v. 

Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973); Attorney General Opinion MW-243 (1980) 

(Broadrick raised but did not answer questions as to whether First 

Amendment protected employee in wearing campaign button off duty). 

The Advisory Committee noted that 

[t]raditionally, the need to protect employees 

from coercion by supervisors has been mentioned as 

justification for prohibition of political 

activity. Also the state may impose some restraint on the political activities of its public 

employees in order to promote efficiency and 

integrity in public service. Nevertheless, subcoxsaittee and full committee members felt that the 

underlying basis for the statutory restrictions is 

removed when the public employee is not on duty or 

performing his official duties or utilizing state 

property. 

Final Report of the Public Servant Standards of Conduct Advisory 

Committee at IA; but see United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 

330 U.S. 75 (1947). 

Thus, a major purpose of Senate Bill No. 762 was to remove 

restrictions on political activity of public employees. In addition, 

since state employees had no clearly outlined guide to participation 

in political activity, Senate Bill No. 762 also sought to outline the 

extent to which they might participate in political activity. Bill 

Analysis to.S.B. No. 762, prepared for Senate Committee on State 

Affairs, filed in Bill File to H.B. No. 762, Legislative Reference 

Library. Section 3, in language that tracks provisions of the federal 

Hatch Act applicable to certain state employees, outlines the limits 

on a state employee's political activity. See 5 U.S.C. §§1501, 1502 

(Hatch Act prohibitions applicable to state employees principally 

employed in connection with a federally financed activity); Hum. Res. 

Code 121.009 (DHR employees subject to Hatch Act); Attorney General 

Opinion MU-149 (1980) (DPS employees subject to Hatch Act). 

The political activity forbidden by section 3 of article 6252-9f. 

V.T.C.S., was not necessarily permitted conduct before that statute 

became effective. Article III, section 51, of the Texas Constitution 

prohibits the legislature from using public funds for a nongovernmental purpose. Road District No. 4, Shelby County v. Allred, 

p. 2670 
Honorable Oscar H. Mauzy - Page 4 (JM-597) 

68 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1934); see State v. City of Dallas, 319 S.W.2d 767 

(Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1959), aff'd, 331 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. 1960); see 

also Tex. Const. art. III, §52 (similar prohibition applicable= 

political subdivisions~); Tex. Const. art. XVI, 16 (no appropriation 

for private purposes). Numerous Attorney General Opinions disapprove 

attempts to divert public funds and other public resources to private 

purposes. See, e.g., Attorney General Opinions JM-30 (1983) (state 

funds may not be used to provide private individuals with telecommunications devices for the deaf); MW-532 (1982) (grant of state funds to 

private landowners to reforest idle lands); MU-89 (1979) (school 

district policy permitting teachers to work for professional associations while receiving salaries from the school district is unconstitutional); MW-36 (1979) (county may not spend public funds to purchase 

and mail Christmas cards); MM-22 (1979) (state funds may not be 

granted to private individuals to pay their utility costs); M-661 

(1970) (county may not donate funds to a private charity). Other 

provisions of law already prevent a public employee from using his 

official position to benefit himself in his private capacity. See 

Penal Code ch. 39 (abuse of office); V.T.C.S. art. 6252-9b, §§6, 

(provisions guarding against state officer or employee being 

influenced by private interest). As Justice Douglas said in dissenting 

to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld the Hatch Act against 

challenges that it violated employees ' First Amendment rights and that 

it was void for vagueness, 

no one could object if employees were barred from 

using office time to engage in outside activities 

whether political or otherwise. 

United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of 

Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 597 (1973). 

Thus, sections 3(a)(l) and 3(a)(2) of article 6252-9f do not 

prohibit conduct that was formerly permissible under Texas law. These 

provisions do expressly inform state employees that they may not 

divert state resources to private political interests or direct their 

official authority to serving such interests; violation of these 

provisions subjects them to termination. If the college course work 

you describe involves violations of section 3, article 6252-9f, 

V.T.C.S., it probably was also impermissible under prior law. 

We thus turn to a central question: whether the community 

college personnel who are responsible for offering the optional 

course work assignments you describe have violated section 3(a)(l) of 

article 6252-9f. V.T.C.S. This section provides that a state employee 

may not 

use official authority or influence or permit the 

use of a program administered by the state to 

interfere with or affect the result of an election 

p. 2671 
Honorable Oscar H. Mausy - Page 5 ,(3-l-597) 

- 

P 

or nomination of a candidate, or to achieve any 

other political purpose. . . . 

V.T.C.S. art. 6252-9f, 83(a)(l). An employee of a public junior 

college is a "state employee" within section 3(a)(l). See V.T.C.S. 

art. 6252-9f. §(l)(B), (2); Educ. Code §61.003(2). (7). - 

Community college courses are reviewed by the Coordinating Board, 

Texas College and University System, before they are offered. 

Community colleges offer both university-parallel programs and 

occupational programs. Educ. Code 1130.005. A community college 

course of study in freshman and sophmore college work must be 

submitted to the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University 

System, for approval before it is offered. Educ. Code P130.004; see 

Educ. Code 9130.005 (public junior colleges renamed "commune 

colleges"). The board of trustees of a community college must each 

year submit to the Coordinating Board a comprehensive list of all 

courses, with a description of content and scope, to be offered the 

following year. Educ. Code 161.052. The Coordinating Board may order 

a deletion or consolidation of any courses as submitted. Id.; Educ. 

Code 5161.053-61.054; see Educ. Code 5561.060-61.063 (Coordinating 

Board authority over Gunity colleges). See also Educ. Code 

1851.301-51.302; Attorney General Opinion M-143 (1967) (courses must 

be offered in American history and government). The governing body of 

the community college may offer government courses subject to the 

statutory requirements and Coordinating Board review already 

described. See Educ. Code 59130.002, 130.084; see also Educ. Code 

023.26. The-governing body of the community college also has 

authority to hire and supervise employees to teach the course 

offerings. 

In our opinion, article 6252-9f does not prohibit community 

college employees from authorizing and offering optional assignments 

which involve student work for a political campaign. We cannot 

provide comprehensive guidelines for offering internship assignments; 

that is within the discretion of the community college trustees and 

the Coordinating Board. We can, however, point out some essential 

restrictions. 

The assignments must be designed to carry out the educational 

purposes of the course and of the community college. The course 

presumably will go through the approvals required by the Education 

Code, and the instructor, in exercising his authority delegated by the 

college trustees, will design and direct the assignments to carry out 

the educational purposes of the institution. The instructor and other 

employees responsible for this program must not allow their political 

preferences to influence the operation of the program; decisions about 

such optional assignments must be based on the educational benefit to 

the student, and not consider the benefit or detriment to the 

political entity. If the assignments are conducted to fulfill the 

p. 2672 
, 

Honorable Oscar H. Mausy - Page 6 (JM-597) 

educational purposes of the college, and if any.effect they may have 

on the political campaign is entirely incidental and minimal in 

degree, the instructor and other responsible college employees will 

not, in our opinion, violate section 3(a)(l) of article 6252-9f, 

V.T.C.S. 

You ask whether a government student may be assigned to 

participate in a particular campaign against his will. You have 

characterized the internship assignments as optional. Presumably, no 

student is required to participate in an internship at all, and 

students may complete that segment of the course work by preparing 

some other type of assignment. Moreover, section 3(a)(2) prohibits a 

state employee from coercing the "contribution of any thing of 

value . . . to a political organisation for a political purpose." 

This prevents a teacher from "coercing" a student to contribute his 

services to a political organization for a political purpose. 

SUMMARY 

Section 3(a)(l) of article 6252-9f, V.T.C.S., 

does not absolutely prohibit a community college 

from offering as course work in a government class 

an optional assignment which involves student 

participation in a political campaign. Section 

3(a)(2) of the statute prevents a teacher from 

"coercing" a student to contribute his services to 

a political organisation for a political purpose. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACK HIGHTONER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Susan L. Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

1 

p. 2673