.
, -

MARKWHITE Attorney General

Supreme Court Building P.0. Box12546 Austin, TX. 76711 5121475-2501 Telex 9101674.1367 Telecopier 51214750266

1607 Main St..Suite 1400 Dallas. TX. 75201 21417426944

4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 ElPas6. TX. 79605 9151533.3464

12M Dallas Ave.,Suite 202 Hous,~~, TX. 77002 71316500365

606 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 76401 6061747.5236

4306 N.Tenth. Suite B McAllen. TX. 76501 5121662-4547

200 Main Plaza. Suite400 SanAntonio, TX. 76205 51212254191

AnEqual Opportunity1 Affirmative Action Employer 

# TheAttorney General ofTexas
November 10, 1981

Honorable EvansN.Wentz Executive Director State Commission for the Blind 314West 11th Street Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. Mw-389 Re: Legality of rider to appropriation for State Commission for the Blind

Dear Mr.Wentz: Youhave requested our opinion regarding the validity of arider to the recent appropriation to the State Commission for the Blind. Acts 1981. 67th Leg., ch. 875. at 3553. The rider provides In pertinent part: It is the intent of the Legislature that out

of funds appropriated above in item 5.a. Vocational Rehabilitation an amountnot to exceed $277,000 each fiscal year shall be expended for entering into a contract with the Texas Lions League or a similar organization to provide rehabilitative services to blind adults at the TlZXX3 Lions Camp for Crippled Children at Kerrville or a similar facility located outside Austin. Yousuggest that this rider is violative of article III, section 35of the Texas Constitution, which the Texas Supreme Court has long construed to prohibit the enactment of general legislation within a general appropriations bill. SeeMoore v. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559. - 561 (Tex. 1946). It is well established that a rider to a general appropriations act is valid if its only effect is to “detail, limit, or restrict the use of the funds... therein appropriated.” Attorney General Opinion v-1253 (1951). See also Moore v. Sheppard, m; Linden v. Finley. 

### 49 s.w. 578 (Tex. 

### 1899); Attorney General Opinions MU-51 (1979); M-1199 (1972). Arider maynot, however, repeal, modify or amendan existing general law. In our opinion, the rider at Issue here serves only to “detail, limit, or restrict the use of the funds” already appropriated. In

p. 1322,~

- I Mr. Evans N.Wentr- Page 2 

### (Mw-389)

Attorney General Opinion MW-51.weconsidered the following provision of the 1979General Appropriations Act:

(47) TheTexas Department of HumanResources is hereby authorized and directed to construct a state office building, in cooperation with the State Board of Control, consisting of NTE530.000 gross square feet (400,000 net square feet). NO General Revenue, Children’s Assistance, or Medical Assistance funds maybeused for this purpose. It is the Intent of the Legislature that the building house the central administrative offices of both the Texas Department of HumanResources and the Texas Youth Council. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that the building be constructed on State land currently owned by the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The Board of Mental Health and Mental Retardation is hereby authorized and directed to transfer to the State Board of Control record title to acertain triangular-shaped tract of land 29acres, more or less, in the north part of the City of Austin, bounded onthewest byWest Guadalupe Street andNorth LamarBoulevard, onthe north by 51st Street, on the east by Guadalupe Street andhaving the southern tip of the tract at the intersection of Guadalupe and West Guadalupe Streets, together with all records held by it concerning this tract. Relying onthe standard affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 599 (Tex. 1975). wesaid that the language of the rider:

directs and qualifies the use of funds appropriated elsewhere.... It prohibits the use of certain categories of funds for construction of this building, and it effectively directs the use of funds appropriated in other portions of the Act. Likewise, the rider to the appropriation for the State Commission for the Blind constitutes a limitation on the expenditure of funds appropriated in item 5.a. Inaddition, by requiring the commission to enter the contract, the rider “effectively directs the use of funds.” Aswehave noted, a rider is invalid if it attempts to repeal. modify or-amend anexisting law. See. e.g., Attorney General Opinion MW-104(1979). Section 91.052 of the HumanResources Codeprovides in pertinent part:,‘:
. Mr. Evans N.Wentz - Page 

### 3 mw-389)

(a) The commission [for the Blind] shall conduct a program to provide vocational rehabilitation services to eligible blind disabled individuals. (b) Toachieve the purposes of the program, the commission may: (1) cooperate with other public and private agencies in studying the problems involved In providing vocational rehabilitation and in establishing. developing, and providing necessary or desirable facilities and SCKViCeS.... The statute places the decision to “cooperate with other public and private agencies” within the commission’s discretion. The rider qualifies, but does not remove, chat discretion. The commission remains at liberty to determine the amount of the contract, up to $277,000; it retains achoice of parties with whomto contract; and it retains a choice of facilities. In our opinion, the rider is virtually declaratory of existing law and does not repeal, modify or amendsection 91.052 or anyother statute. Weconclude that the rider is not violative of article III, section 35of the Texas Constitution. SUMMARY A rider to the appropriation for the State Commission for the Blind is not violative of article III, section 35of the Texas Constitution.
=g

MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas JOHNW.FAINTER,JR. First Assistant Attorney General RICHARDE. GRAYIII Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byRick Gilpin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED

: OPINIONCOMMITTEE Susan 1.. Garrison, Chairman Rick Gilpin