HonorableRobert S. Calvert

Comptroller of PublicAccounts Opinion No. c-692 Austin, Texas Re: Payment of Registration Fees on facts submitted. Dear Mr. Calvert:

Your request for an opinion on the above subject matter reads as follows:

"Ihave been presented with two accounts for the payment of registration fees, each being incurred under somewhat different circumstances.
"1

. A registration fee of $5C.O0 was paid in the name of the State of Texas to attend a conference sponsoredby theUrban TransportationCommittee of the Greater Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburg. A copy of theprogram is attached. "2. A registration fee of $10.00 was paid to attend theUniform Commercial Code Institute, the meeting being held in SanAntonio. Attached to the account is a receipt for the registration fee which is signed by an executive secretary for the San Antonio Bar Association.
"House Bill No. 12, acts of the 59th Legislature, Article 5, the appropriation bill under which we are now operatingprovides in part: "'Theprovisions set forth in this and all other Articles of thisAct are limitations on the appropriationsmade in thisAct.' - "The limitation as to payment of registration fees found inArticle 5 reads as follows:
"'RESTRICTIONON REGISTRATION FEES. None of the monies appropriated in this act may be expended for dues, registration fees or any kind of similar expense incurred in joining or attending any type of organization,unless themembership is in the name of the State of Texas.' -3326-Hon. Robert S. Calvert,page 2 (c-692)

'Inview of restrictionsas to registration fees for attending organizedgatherings,would thisprovision be violated by paying the registration fees incurred under the conditions set out above? 'Theappropriation against which it is requested that the feesbe paid is found inArticle 6 of the appropriationbill under which we are now operating." The answer to the questionsposed in your request is governedby the principles of law announced inAttorney General's Opinions c-671 (1966)and C-571 (1965)and authorities cited therein.
InAttorney General's Opinion C-571 it was held that the TexasWater Development Boardmay pay from appropriated funds the tuition fees of two employees to attend an eight-day course in Earth Control and Investigationconductedby the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Laboratories,and the registration need not bemade in the name of the State. It was specifically stated in C-5712

"Theabove quoted provision of theApp,ropriations Bill would prohibit expenditure of such funds for such purposes only if theprovision, in this situation,did in fact require registration in the name of the State of Texas and this were not compliedwith. It could be argued that the course of instruction conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation was a 'typeof organization'and the registrationsmust be in the name of~the State of Texas if the tuition is to be paid from such appropriated funds. However, in this particular instance, inasmuch as the Bureau of Reclamation is an agency of theUnited States the term 'organilation 1would not be applicable. In holding that the word 'organization'did not apply to theUnited States, the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the case of Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Manson, 54 A2d 580, 583; 94 N H 389' t t d 'c t i 1 "organization" is not commonly emp!.otet "in'spe%itgno", theUnited States.' "Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that such Section 18, ofArticle V, of House Bill 12,Acts of the 59th Legislature, does not require, as a prerequisite to expenditure of ap&ropriated funds, that registration at courses conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation be made in the name of the State of Texas. However, there is no reason why the registrations could not be made in thename of the State of Texas." -3327-Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (C-692)

Likewise, inAttorney General's Opinion c-671, it was held that appraisers employed by theVeterans' Land Board may attend an appraisal school at TexasA&M University and have their registration fees paid by the State.

Attached to your request is the statementby the head of the agency informing that the trainingand information made available to the employees involvedwas for the furtherance of the governmental duties imposed upon theagency and was directly and substantially related to theperformance of such governmental functions. In this connection, it was held in Attorney General's Opinion c-671, supra.:

"Inprior questions of this nature, this officehas consistently employed twobasic criteria: (1)Whether the training described will be directlyand substantiallyused to,facilitate the governmental duties and functions of the State agency requesting such training;and (2)Do the facts establish that there is a reasonable, substantialand direct relationshipbetween thepurpose of the trainingand the accomplishment of the governmental functions entrusted to the employee? Attorney General's Opinions W-83 (1957), w-233 (1957), W-433 (1958).”
In view of the foregoing,you are advised that the registration fees to attend the conference sponsoredby the Urban Transportation Committee of the Greater Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburg, and the registration fee to attend theUniform Commercial Code Institutemay be paid. ~ SUMMARY Registration fees necessary to attend courses of instructiondeemed necessary to the furtherance of governmental duties imposed upon a State agency may be paid by such State agency. Attorney General's Opinions C-571 (1965) and c-671 (1966).
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CARR Attorney General of Texas

JR:sck General -332thHon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 4 (C-692)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman Linward Shivers Charles Ear-dwell W. 0. Shultz Pat Bailey
APPROVED FOR THEATTOPxNEY GENERAL BY: T. B. Wright

-3329-