- ’

September 18. 1953

Hon. Robert S. Calvert Comptroller of Public Accounts Austin, Texas Opinion No. S-l00

.

. I

.Dear Mr. Calvert: Re: Several questions 

### ,respecting the maximum travel 

### expense allowance of officers and employees ofthe Texas Employment Commission.

We refer toyour request for our opinion onthe following questions concerning the general appropriations act now in effect:

‘1. The applicability ofthe expense account requirements in Section Sj, Article VI, House Bill 111 (now Chapter El), Acts 53rd Legislature, 1953, to offic~ers and employees of Texas Employment Commission.

“2. The applicability of Section 8k. Article VI, House Bill 111 (now Chapter 81). Acts 53rd Legislature, 1953, to officers and employees ofTexas Employment Commission as 

### respects the reimbursement limitations there fixed.

“3. The applicability ofSection 8k. Article VI, House Bill 111 (now Chapter 81). Acts 53rd Leg- ,islature, 1953, to officers and employees ofTexas Employment Commission as respects the requirement for receipts.

“4. The legality ofreimbursing laundry, cleaning and pressing charges. andtips expended by Texas Employment Commission officers and employees while traveling inthe discharge oftheir duties for the State ofTexa~.~:

IIIa recent opinion we held that federal funds received by this State tocover administrative expenses ofthe Texas Employment Commission (the Unemployment Compensation Administration Fund) 

### are inthe State Treasury within the~meaning ofArticle VIII, Section 6ofthe Texas Constitution and must be appropriated by the Texas Legislature in. .

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (S-100)

order to be available for use. Att’y Gen. Op, MS-13 (1953). Subsequently, the Fifty-third Legislature appropriated those funds for the present biennium. All ofyour questions concern what terms or limitations were imposed by that Legislature. Insubstance you ask whether or not the Commission is subject to the travel expense reimbursement limitations imposed by Chapter 81 on most State agencies byvirtue ofthe general riders pertaining to travel expense contained inArticle VI.

There can be no doubt about the applicability ofArticle VI; Section 8travel restrictions to most State agencies. This follows from the general terminology ofSection 8 (“These provisions with exceptions shall apply toall officers and employees who are reimbursed for traveling expenses from money appropriated inthis act-). Italso follows from the general law directive contained inArticle 6823, Vernon’s Civil Statutes (“The traveling and other necessary expenses incurred by the various officers, assistants, deputies, clerks and other employees inthe various departments, institutions, boards, commissions or other subdivisions ofthe State Government. inthe active discharge oftheir duties shall be such as are specifically fixed and appropriated inthe General Appropriation Bills providing for the expenses ofthe State Government from year to year”).
But, in our opinion, the special rider accompanying the appropriation ofthe Unemployment Compensation Administration Fund in Chapter 81 makes travel expense reimbursement paid from that appropriation one ofthe “exceptions” toArticle VI. Section 8. The appropriation and special rider referred toare as follows:

“All moneys granted tothis State by the Federal Government for the administration ofthe Unemployment Compensation Act or which are now ondeposit to the criedit ofany funds maintained by the State Treasurer for the Texas Employment Commission and any moneys rec,eived for the credit ofsuch funds are hereby~appropriated for the purposes authorized by the provisions ofthe Texas Unemployment Compensation Act and/or for the purposes for which such moneys were granted.

“In order to comply and conform with the terms of Federal laws and regulations and standards under which such moneys are granted, notwithstanding any other provisions ofthisAct, moneys granted for administration shall be expended inaccordance with the terms ofthe Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, the standards ofthe Bureau ofEmployment Security and/or United States Employment Service or successors. and the rules or regulations adopted by the Texas Employment Commission to meet such standards; out ofState,travel expense paid solely from Federal grants and,made in accordance with the Federal standards~ as being necessary for proper administrationHon. Robert S. Calve& page 3 (S-100)

of the Unemployment Compensation Act shall not require approval by the Attorney General; travel expense and.salaries ofthe employees ofthe Texas Employment Commission and Members ofthe Commission shall be paid in accordance with agreements made between the Commission, the Bureau ofEmployment Security and/or the United States Employment Service or successors, which agreements shall provide for salaries within the limits herein prescribed and in conformity with Federal standards ofa Merit System for Personnel Administration. Prior to the submission ofany budget or request for funds toany Federal agency such budget or request shall be submitted to and filed with the Governor. Itis provided further that ifany ofthe requirements ofthis Act are contrary to any ofthe terms ofFederal legislation or regulations under which moneys are granted to the Texas Employment Commission, such requirements may be suspended with thewritten consent and approval ofthe Governor.

. . .” Sec. 1,Art. III, Ch. 81, Acts 53rd Leg., 1953. p. 127 at pp. 200-201. (Emphasis added).

Inreferring to the effect ofvarious appropriation bill riders we have said that by ordinary rules ofconstruction “general provisions will be governed to the extent ofconflict by special provisions. and that special provisions in each article will be governed to the extent ofconflict by ‘extra-special* provisions appear’ing inthe body ofthe article in connection with particular appropriations.” Att’y Gen. Op. 

### ~~-06. p. 17 (1953).

Thus, it is the opinion ofthis office that ifthe rules or regulations adopted by the Texas Employment Commission to govern reimbursement for travel expense are “in accordance” with agreements made between the Commission, the Bureau ofEmployment Security and/or the United States Employment Service or successors, and have been approved by the appropriate federal authority as complying with the terms ofFederal legislation
or regulations under which moneys are granted tothe Commission, then such rules are controlling onall matters covered by them, and tothat extent the general travel expense regulations ofArticle VI, Section 8donot apply. *
The general law creating and governing the employment security system administered by the Commission has never been substantially

* Iftaken literally tG language ofthe final sentence quoted from the Texas Employment Commission’s special rider would furnish an argument against the conclusion we reach. But a literal construction ofthis sentence would render itentirely nugatory because the Governor’s power to “suspend’ legislation can be constitutionally exercised only by veto withinthe prescribed time limits. Tex. Cons& Art. I. Sec. 28; Art. IV. sec. 14.Hon. Rohert S. Calvert. page 4 (S-100)

altered. 42 U.S.C.A. 5~5502, ~503;Article 5221b-1 et seq.. V.C.S. After consideration ofthese statutes this office stated in Opinion V-427 (1947) that these provisions
Y00

. reveal an unmistakeable intent on the part of Congress and the Texas Legislature that all moneys received from the Federal Government under Title IIIofthe Social Security Act
can be expended only inthe amounts and inaccordance with the standards ofthe Social Security Administration and the rules and regulations adopted by the Commission to meet such standards.

“Under these cooperative endeavors the several Federal Agencies give tothe State the standards for the State to follow informulating the rules and regulations relative tovarious systems. After the State has prepared its rules and regulations, these are submitted to the Federal Agencies for approval, and once they are appr,oved they cannot be altered or changed without first securing the approval ofthe k’ederal Agencies. (Emphasis added).

“These approved plans, as they are called, are very detailed and cover every phase ofthe administration of the acts and the expenditures that are made in connection therewith. (D

Ina later opinion ofthis office. Opinion V-504 (1948). we acknowledged the fact, well illustrated by the questions raised inyour opinion request, that there are many instances of
Y

. e*apparent conflict in State and Federal laws and re,gulations which apply to this ‘State Agency” financed through Federal appropriations.D

But in the same opinion this office reiterated a position consistently followed in our prior opinions, namely, that

“As pointed out in V-427 the terms and conditions ofthe Federal Statutes are recognized and agreed toby
our State Statutes. Therefore, there is no alternative except to give primary authority to the Federal laws and regulations applicable just as the Texas Legislature has done.” (Emphasis added).

InOpinion Oi3737 (1941) we held that funds supplied by the United States to the Unemployment Compensation Administration Fund could be disbursed to purchase supplies and equipment according toHon. Robert S. Calvert. page 5 (S-100)

regulations approved by the Social Security Board rather than **according** to Section 2ofthe then-current departmental appropriation act and other State laws which provided a different method ofprocurement for State agencies.

InOpinion O-5524 (1943) itwas held that the Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission was not affected or limited by a general statute passed in 1943 which specified a particular method of procurement ofrental space which was mandatory on other State agencies and.departments.

And in Opinion V-504, mentioned above, we held: (1) that irrespective ofa specific requirement to the contrary inthe then.,current departmental appropriation act, itwas not necessary that the Legislative Audit Committee approve the Texas Employment Commission’s budget for the expenditure ofits administrative costs which are paid from federal funds; and (2) in re-affirmance of Opinions O-3737 and O-5524, that itwas not necessary for the Texas Employment Commission to procure supplies and equipment or to make rental contracts through the State Board of Control as required of State agencies generally,

Your letter contains excerpts from certain regulations or standards promulgated by the Bureau ofEmployment Security as well as your statement that “In Opinions V-577, V-1250 and others, you have held that such funds [granted the State for administration expense] become State funds and are subject to State laws, rulings, and regulations.”

Sofar as the federal standards are concerned, we understand your letter to suggest that this office is authorized to interpret these stand= ards and that this office is empowered to hold that Commission regulations do not **conform** thereto. i,e., that this office may disapprove Commission regulations. But the fact is that we possess no such authority or power. The interpretation ofthese standards, as well as their promulgation, is
an exclusive function offederal power, Once the appropriate federal authority has approved a given regulation ofthe Texas Employment Commission, such a regulation must, under the federal and Texas statutes, be recognized as “primary authority,* not to “be altered or changed without first securing the approval ofthe Federal Agencies.” Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. V-504 (1948) and V-427 (1947). This has been our construction ofthe law heretofore. Until the statutes are changed, we are convinced thatwe must maintain this view toward their meaning.

Inregard tothe opinions you mention, we do not agree with your interpretation. Neither ofthose opinions holds that federal moneys deposited inthe State Treasury become “State funds” inthe sense that State law and only State law thereafter governs their disposition. Opinion V-577 (1948) holds that a particular federal fund gra.nted tothe State Health Department under 42 U.S.C.A., Sec. 246 was within the scope ofthe Employees Retirement System Act and could be used to match empl,oyee. ,.-

Hon. Robert S. Calvert. page 6 (S-100) - .

contributions under the Act. But the opinion points out that all questions relating towhether or not the federal purposes ofthe grant would prevent its use for retirement act matching purposes were removed by specific approval of such ause from the Surgeon General, the supervising federal budget authority for such grants.

InOpinion V-1250 (1951) we held that certain federal funds ~granted to the Commission for the Blind and to the State Health Department could be received and taken into account inthe funds ofthe State Treasury. and that said funds were appropriated by the general appropriation act to the said State agencies for the purposes for which the allocations
were made by the federal government. The language inthe opinion stating that the funds could be “expended under the provisions ofthe general appropriation bill” meant only that provisions inthe general appropriation bill had made an appropriation authorizing their expenditure. The opinion does not hold or even suggest that after being deposited the funds are subject to the primary authority ofState law ifthe State law and federal law
or regulations conflict. To the contrary. Opinion V-1250 makes it clear that the particular federal grant tothe State Health Department should be expended. along with State funds appropriated to match the grant, in strict accordance with standards incorporated into a personnel plan approved not only by the State Health Department but also by twofederal agenc~ies.

SUMMARY
The expense account requirements and limitations ofSections 8j and 8k, Article VI, Chapter 81, Acts 53rd Legislature, 1953. do not apply to officers and employees ofthe Texas Employment Commission ifthe subjects dealt with inthese sections are covered by travel expense reimbursement regulations ofthe Commission which have been approved by the proper federal agency under 42 U.S.C.A., Sections 502. 503. Itis legal to reimburse laundry, cleaning and pressing charges, and tips expended by Texas Employment Commission officers and employees if such reimbursement is authorized by the properly approved regulations of the Commission.

APPROVED: Yours very truly, Mary K. Wall JOHN BEN SHEPPERD Reviewer Attorney General

Robert S. Trotti First Assistant
John Ben Shepperd Attorney General ’ Phillit Robinson Assistant