- ’ 

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 

of the Texas Employment Commission. 

We refer to your request for our opinion on the following 

questions concerning the general appropriations act now in effect: 

‘1. The applicability of the 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 of Texas 

Employment Commission as respects the reimbursement limitations there fixed. 

“3. The applicability of Section 8k. Article 

VI, House Bill 111 (now Chapter 81). Acts 53rd Leg- 

,islature, 1953, to officers and employees of Texas 

Employment Commission as respects the requirement for receipts. 

“4. The legality of reimbursing laundry, 

cleaning and pressing charges. and tips expended 

by Texas Employment Commission officers and 

employees while traveling in the discharge of their 

duties for the State of Texa~.~: 

III a recent opinion we held that federal funds received by 

this State to cover administrative expenses of the Texas Employment 

Commission (the Unemployment Compensation Administration Fund) are 

in the State Treasury within the~meaning of Article VIII, Section 6 of the 

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 of your questions concern what terms or limitations were imposed by that Legislature. In substance you ask whether or not the Commission is subject to the travel expense reimbursement limitations imposed by Chapter 81 on most State agencies by virtue of the general riders pertaining to travel expense contained in Article VI. 

There can be no doubt about the applicability of Article VI; 

Section 8 travel restrictions to most State agencies. This follows from 

the general terminology of Section 8 (“These provisions with exceptions 

shall apply to all officers and employees who are reimbursed for traveling expenses from money appropriated in this act-). It also follows from 

the general law directive contained in Article 6823, Vernon’s Civil Statutes (“The traveling and other necessary expenses incurred by the various officers, assistants, deputies, clerks and other employees in the various departments, institutions, boards, commissions or other subdivisions 

of the State Government. in the active discharge of their duties shall be 

such as are specifically fixed and appropriated in the General Appropriation Bills providing for the expenses of the State Government from year 

to year”). 

But, in our opinion, the special rider accompanying the appropriation of the Unemployment Compensation Administration Fund in 

Chapter 81 makes travel expense reimbursement paid from that appropriation one of the “exceptions” to Article VI. Section 8. The appropriation and special rider referred to are as follows: 

“All moneys granted to this State by the Federal 

Government for the administration of the Unemployment 

Compensation Act or which are now on deposit to the criedit of any funds maintained by the State Treasurer for the 

Texas Employment Commission and any moneys rec,eived 

for the credit of such funds are hereby~ appropriated for 

the purposes authorized by the provisions of the 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 of thisAct, moneys granted for administration 

shall be expended in accordance with the terms of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, the standards of the 

Bureau of Employment 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 of State, travel expense paid solely 

from Federal grants and ,made in accordance with the Federal standards~ as being necessary for proper administration 
Hon. Robert S. Calve& page 3 (S-100) 

of the Unemployment Compensation Act shall not require 

approval by the Attorney General; travel expense and. salaries of the employees of the Texas Employment Commission and Members of the Commission shall be paid in accordance with agreements made between the Commission, 

the Bureau of Employment 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 of a Merit System for 

Personnel Administration. Prior to the submission of any 

budget or request for funds to any Federal agency such budget or request shall be submitted to and filed with the Governor. It is provided further that if any of the requirements 

of this Act are contrary to any of the terms of Federal legislation or regulations under which moneys are granted to 

the Texas Employment Commission, such requirements 

may be suspended with the written consent and approval 

of the Governor. . . .” Sec. 1, Art. III, Ch. 81, Acts 53rd 

Leg., 1953. p. 127 at pp. 200-201. (Emphasis added). 

In referring to the effect of various appropriation bill riders we have said 

that by ordinary rules of construction “general provisions will be governed 

to the extent of conflict by special provisions. and that special provisions 

in each article will be governed to the extent of conflict by ‘extra-special* 

provisions appear’ing in the body of the article in connection with particular appropriations.” Att’y Gen. Op. ~~-06. p. 17 (1953). 

Thus, it is the opinion of this office that if the 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 of Employment Security and/or the United States 

Employment Service or successors, and have been approved by the appropriate federal authority as complying with the terms of Federal legislation 

or regulations under which moneys are granted to the Commission, then 

such rules are controlling on all matters covered by them, and to that extent the general travel expense regulations of Article VI, Section 8 do not 

apply. * 

The general law creating and governing the employment security system administered by the Commission has never been substantially 

* If taken literally tG language of the final sentence quoted from the 

Texas Employment Commission’s special rider would furnish an argument against the conclusion we reach. But a literal construction of this 

sentence would render it entirely nugatory because the Governor’s power 

to “suspend’ legislation can be constitutionally exercised only by veto within the 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 ~5 502, ~503; Article 5221b-1 et seq.. V.C.S. After 

consideration of these statutes this office stated in Opinion V-427 (1947) 

that these provisions 

Y 0 0 . reveal an unmistakeable intent on the part of Congress 

and the Texas Legislature that all moneys received from the 

Federal Government under Title III of the Social Security Act 

can be expended only in the amounts and in accordance with 

the standards of the 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 to the State the standards for the State to 

follow in formulating the rules and regulations relative to various 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 of the k’ederal 

Agencies. (Emphasis added). 

“These approved plans, as they are called, are very 

detailed and cover every phase of the administration of the 

acts and the expenditures that are made in connection therewith. (D 

In a later opinion of this office. Opinion V-504 (1948). we 

acknowledged the fact, well illustrated by the questions raised in your 

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 

of the Federal Statutes are recognized and agreed to by 

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). 

In Opinion 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 to 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert. page 5 (S-100) 

regulations approved by the Social Security Board rather than according 

to Section 2 of the then-current departmental appropriation act and other 

State laws which provided a different method of procurement for State 

agencies. 

In Opinion O-5524 (1943) it was 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 of rental space which was mandatory on other State agencies 

and. departments. 

And in Opinion V-504, mentioned above, we held: (1) that irrespective of a specific requirement to the contrary in the then.,current 

departmental appropriation act, it was not necessary that the Legislative 

Audit Committee approve the Texas Employment Commission’s budget 

for the expenditure of its administrative costs which are paid from federal funds; and (2) in re-affirmance of Opinions O-3737 and O-5524, that 

it was 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 of Employment 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.” 

So far 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 of these standards, as well as their promulgation, is 

an exclusive function of federal power, Once the appropriate federal authority has approved a given regulation of the 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 of the Federal Agencies.” Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. 

V-504 (1948) and V-427 (1947). This has been our construction of the law 

heretofore. Until the statutes are changed, we are convinced that we must 

maintain this view toward their meaning. 

In regard to the opinions you mention, we do not agree with 

your interpretation. Neither of those opinions holds that federal moneys 

deposited in the State Treasury become “State funds” in the sense that 

State law and only State law thereafter governs their disposition. Opinion 

V-577 (1948) holds that a particular federal fund gra.nted to the State Health 

Department under 42 U.S.C.A., Sec. 246 was within the scope of the 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 to whether or not the federal purposes of the grant would prevent 

its use for retirement act matching purposes were removed by specific approval of such a use from the Surgeon General, the supervising federal budget authority for such grants. 

In Opinion 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 in the funds of the 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 in the opinion stating 

that the funds could be “expended under the provisions of the general appropriation bill” meant only that provisions in the 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 of State law if the State law and federal law 

or regulations conflict. To the contrary. Opinion V-1250 makes it clear 

that the particular federal grant to the 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 two federal agenc~ies. 

SUMMARY 

The expense account requirements and limitations 

of Sections 8j and 8k, Article VI, Chapter 81, Acts 53rd 

Legislature, 1953. do not apply to officers and employees 

of the Texas Employment Commission if the subjects 

dealt with in these sections are covered by travel expense 

reimbursement regulations of the Commission which have 

been approved by the proper federal agency under 42 U.S.C.A., 

Sections 502. 503. It is 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