TI-SE ATI-ORSEY GEXERAL 

OF TESAS 

AUSITXS. TR~LI~ 78711 

February 17, 1977 

The Ronorable Ii. Q. Sibley 

Executive Director 

Opinion No. U-944 

Texas Animal Health Commission Re: Whether the Texas 

.1020 Sam Rouston State Office Animal Xealth Commission 

Building may purchase uniforms for 

Austin, Texas 78701 inspectors. 

Rear Dr. Sibley: 

You have asked whether the Texas Animal Realth Commission has authority to purchase uniforms for employees whostop and inspect livestock shipments pursuant to article 

70146, V.T.C.S. You also ask whether hats and boots constitute 

parts of the uniforms. You inform us that you purchased 

uniforms in 1975 and 1976. The Board of Control approved 

these items and the Comptroller made payment, but the State 

Auditor questioned the purchase. 

The Legislature may not appropriate money for uniforms 

for the inspectors unless preexisting law authorizes the 

purchase. Tex. Const. art. 3, 9 44; Austin National Rank 

v- Sheppard, 71 S.W.Zd 242 (Tex. 1934). 

Article 70146, pursuant to which the inspections take 

place, provides: 

Section 1. Agents of, the Texas Animal 

Health Commission shall have the right to 

stop and inspect all shipments of livestock 

or livestock products being transPorted into 

or through the State of Texas at any - _ point or 

place en-route in order to determine that 

shiuments. _ _ _ 

p. 3944 
. .’ 

The Honorable H. Q. Sibley -'page 2 (El-944) 

Sec. 2. If any shipment of livestock or 

products thereof is being transported contrary 

to prescribed laws, rules, or regulations, it 

may be detained until compliance is obtained. 

This may include unloading said shipment from 

transporting vehicle . . . . (Emphasis added). 

Article 7014d does not expressly permit the purchase of 

uniforms for inspectors or authorize the Commission to make 

rules to carry out its provisions. It merely grants a power 

that inspectors can exercise to enforce any laws, rules, and 

regulations applicable to the shipments. However, the 

provisions that the inspectors enforce may provide preexisting 

authority for the purchase of uniforms. For example, the 

Commission is required to adopt regulations relating to 

movement out of livestock markets to protect against the 

spread of disease. V.T.C.S. art. 7014c, S 2. It has the 

duty to protect livestock from a number of diseases and to 

establish quarantines. V.T.C.S. art. 7014f-1, 9 1. The 

Commission also must adopt rules for moving livestock into 

and out of Tick Eradication Areas. V.T.C.S. art. 70149-1, 99 

1, 27. The roadside inspections carried out under article 

7014d contribute to the performance of these duties. The 

Commission may adopt rules and regulations to carry out its 

statutory duties. V.T.C.S. arts. 7014c, 9 2; 7014f-1. 9 1; 

7014g-1, SS 1, 27. We believe the Commission has sufficient 

authority to equip its inspectors with.articles necessary to 

their performance of duties under article 7014d. If the 

Commission determines that uniforms are necessary to the 

efficient performance of the inspection duties, it may 

purchase them, provided an appropriation is available. See 

Attorney General Opinions H-289 (19741; C-294 (19641; WWx5 

(1960); O-6903 (19451. We cannot say that the provision of 

uniforms would not further the legislative purpose of controlling 

various animal diseases by inspecting livestock shipments. 

Uniformed inspectors may elicit greater cooperation from 

drivers than non-uniformed inspectors, particularly when 

they detain and unload vehicles under section 2 of article 

7014d. We believe that there is sufficient preexisting law 

on which theme Legislature could base an appropriation for 

uniforms. 

The Legislature may appropriate money for uniforms to 

be worn by Inspectors, i f doing so would serve a proper 

public purpose. See Tex: Const. art. 3, S 51; State v. - - 

p. 3945 
The Honorable 8. Q. Sibley '- Page 3 (H-944) 

city of Austin,331 S.W.Zd 737 (Tex. 1960); Attorney 

Generx Opinion H-289 (1974). The uniforms remain the 

property of the state, and although individuals may derive 

some benefit from the expenditure , this does not make it one 

for a private purpose. Attorney General Opinion WW-865' 

(1960). 

There must be a specific appropriation for the purchase. 

.Tex. Const. art. 8, 9 6; see National Biscuit Corn an 

State, 135 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.1340). Thm1 

.+i vea t 

Coaunission appropriation for 1974-75 provides in pertinent 

part: 

including bacterioloq&hl, ierological, 

toxicological and pathological examination 

by interagency or commercial contract. 

General Appropriations Act, Acts 1973, 

63rd Leg., ch. 659, art. 3i at 1911-12. 

(Emphasis added). 

-. . 

The current appropriations bill provides money for the following 

purposes: 

I., Central Operations: 

. . . . 

d. General Administration 

. . . . 

2. Eradication and - Control: 

a. General Inspections 

. . . . 

- and Support 

General Appropriations Act, Acts 1975, 64th 

Leg., art. 5, ch. 743 at 2550. (Emphasis added). 

p. 3946 
The Honorable Ii. Q.,Sibley k page 4 (E-944) 

We believe that the underlined language of these two provisions 

is sufficient to satisfy article 8, section 6. See Bullock 

v. Calvert, 480 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1972); Attorney-nGinion M-1105 (1972). We also believe that the Legislature 

has indicated its intent to permit the purchase of uniforms. 

The appropriations act contains the following provision: 

LIMITATIONS ON USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS. 

Funds appropriated in articles I, II, and III 

of this Act . . . shall be expended only for 

items set out in the Comptroller's Wanual of 

Accounts, Expenditure Classificatiomexive 

November 1, 1965, as amended, insofar that 

agencies expending said appropriated funds 

shall have existing statutory authority for 

such expenditures and that such expenditures 

are not limited or prohibited elsewhere in 

this Act. Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 743, art. 

5, S 10 at 2852. 

- See Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 659, art. 5, S 10 at 2202. - 

This section permits expenditures for items listed in' 

the Comptroller's Manual of Accounts, if the agency has 

statutory authority for the purchase and if the Act does not 

elsewhere limit the expenditure. The Comptroller's Manual, 

Expenditure Classification 013, includes clothing anh-- 

uniforms along with other items. We have determined that 

the Commission has statutory authority for the purchase, and 

we find no limitation or prohibition on the expenditure 

in the appropriations bill. In fact, the Legislature has 

acquiesed in agency decisions to buy parts of uniforms. 

In Attorney General Opinion WW-865 (1960), this office 

determined that the Texas Youth Council could buy uniforms 

from an "operating expenses" item. We have discerned no 

legislative effort to overturn that decision or to prohibit 

the purchase of uniforms unless the appropriations bill 

expressly mentions them. The Animal Health .Commission 

informs us that it has in the past bought coveralls, badges, 

and rubber boots without legislative objection. We believe 

that the Legislature's acquiesence iii such purchases h& 

indicated its intent to permit the purchase of uniforms 

from its appropriation to the Animal Health Commission. 

See Jes~sen Associates v. Bullock, 531 S.W.Zd 593 (Tex. 1976). 

Kc-e that the A?&mth Commission could DurChaSe 

uniforms for inspectors from both its 1973 and 1974 appropriation 

and its current appropriation.. 

p. 3947 . 
-. 

The Honorable H. Q. Sibley A page 5 (H-944) 

Your second question concerns the items which constitute 

the uniforms. The answer to this question depends on 

an evaluation of the circumstances of employment, including 

the inspectors' duties and working conditions and the purpose 

served by the item, and requires the investigation and 

resolution of fact questions. Since we have no authority 

to resolve questions of fact, we cannot answer your second 

question. The decision as to the composition of the uniform 

lies within the agency's discretion to be exercised in good 

faith, in light of the principles of law we have outlined, 

and in awareness of the constitutional prohibition against 

granting benefits to individuals without a proper public : 

'purpose. Tex. Const. art. 3, 9 51. 

SUMMARY 

The Animal Health Commission is authorized 

to purchase uniforms for inspectors in its 

Compliance and Enforcement Division. Whether 

particular items form parts of the uniforms 

depends on the resolution.of fact questions 

and therefore cannot be determined through 

the opinion process. 

APPROVED: 'J 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3948