JIM MATTOX Attorney General
Supreme Court Building P.0. BOX12543 Austin, TX. 75711.2549 51W75.2501 Telex 9101574-1367 Telecopier 512i47502SS
714Jackson, Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 752024503 2141742.9944
4824Alberta Ave.,Suite 160 ElPaso,TX. 79905.2793 915/533-3464
1001Texas, Suite 700 Houston. TX. 77002-3111 7131223.55%
606 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 70401.3479 8061747.5238
4309 N.Tenth. Suite B McAllen, TX. 78501.1885 5121682.4547 2M)Main Plaza. Suite400 SanAntonio, TX. 78205-2797 512/225.4191
An Equal Opportunity1 Affirmative Action Employer 

# The Attorrmy General of Texas
December 19, 1985

Bonorable Oscar B. gauzy OpinionNo. JM-393 Chairman Committee on Jurisprudence Re: Interpretation of Rider No. 7 Texas State Senate to the appropriation for the Texas P. 0. Box 12068,Capitol Station Adult Probation Commission in the Austin, Texas 78711 General Appropriations Act passed by the Sixty-ninthLegislature Dear SenatorMausy: You have asbsd a question about language in a rider to the General Appropria::LonsAct passed by the Sixty-ninth Legislature. Rider No. 7 to the appropriation for the Texas Adult Probation Commissionprovides:

It is tb.e,

intent of the Legislature that the Adult Probation Commission shall reduce per capita state aid payments to local probation departments by a sum equal to the amount by which the local probation departments' actual payments for mileage or monthly **car** allowances exceed the payments which would be justified using the state mileage reimbursement rate upon a determination by the Adult Probation Commission that the actual payments did exceed the state mileage reimbursement rate. In viewing themileage or car allowancespaidby local probation departments and inmaking related adjustments in,per capita aid, the Adult Probation Commission ;'hallnot consider mileage or car allowances pr&ded to individuals employedby probation departmeEts as ofMay 31, 1985. (Emphasisadded). GeneralAppropriatfonsAct, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, at 7452. The underlined language is, in effect, a grandfather clause.You state that some local probation departments are interpreting that clause as not applying to probation officers who were trainees on May 31, 1985, and 410 have now become regularprobation officers. Assuming this rider is valid, the clause in question applies to -personswho were employees on May 31, 1985. It is not limited to

p. 1800Honorable Oscar 8. Mauzy - Page 2 (JM-393)

persons who were probation officers on that date. Anyone who works for a probation department.for compensation is an employee. See -western National Life&surance Companyv. Black, 383 S.W.Zd 806, 809, 810 (Tex.Civ. App. -?exarkana 1964, writ rei ETbn.r.e.1; Ackley v. State, 592 S.W.Zd 606, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, if trainees receive cosmensatlon from local Drobation deoartments, thev are employees of such departments. The-grandfather- clause in the rider set out above applies to anyone who was an employee of a local probation department onMay 31, 1985. SUMMARY If the rider is valid, the grandfather clause in Rider No. 7 to the appropriation for the Texas Adult Probation commission in the General Appropriations Act enacted by the Sixty-ninth Legislature applies to anyonewho was an employee of a localprobation department onMay 31, 1985.

JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACKHIGHTOWBR First Assistant Attorney General MARY KELLER Executive Assistant Attorney General ROBERT GRAY SpecialAssistant Attorney %neral RICK GILFIN Chairman, Opinion Committee Preparedby SarahWoelk Assistant Attorney General

p. 1801