JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12543 

Austin, TX. 75711. 2549 

51 W75.2501 

Telex 9101574-1367 

Telecopier 512i47502SS 

714 Jackson, Suite 700 

Dallas. TX. 752024503 

2141742.9944 

4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 

915/533-3464 

1001 Texas, 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. Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 

512/225.4191 

An Equal Opportunity1 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorrmy General of Texas 

December 19, 1985 

Bonorable Oscar B. gauzy Opinion No. 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-ninth Legislature 

Dear Senator Mausy: 

You have asbsd a question about language in a rider to the 

General Appropria::Lons Act passed by the Sixty-ninth Legislature. 

Rider No. 7 to the appropriation for the Texas Adult Probation 

Commission provides: 

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 the mileage or car allowances paid by local 

probation departments and in making related adjustments in, per capita aid, the Adult Probation Commission ;'hall not consider mileage or car allowances pr&ded to individuals employed by probation 

departmeEts as of May 31, 1985. (Emphasis added). 

General Appropriatfons Act, 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 regular probation officers. 

Assuming this rider is valid, the clause in question applies to 

-persons who were employees on May 31, 1985. It is not limited to 

p. 1800 
Honorable 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 Company v. Black, 383 S.W.Zd 806, 

809, 810 (Tex. Civ. App. -?exarkana 1964, writ rei ETb n.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 on May 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 anyone who was an employee of a 

local probation department on May 31, 1985. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACKHIGHTOWBR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney %neral 

RICK GILFIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Sarah Woelk 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1801