Honorable Robert S. Calvert

Comptroller of‘Public kccounts ,Opinion ~No.

### W-177. kstin, Texas Re: Legality of the expenditure of State fundsfor stationery, supplies and postage for each member of the House of Rep,resentatives for their use until next meeting of the Dear Mr. Calvert: Legislature, pursuant to H.S.R. 

### 479. Your request for anOpinion dated June 17, 1957, reads as follows:

“I amenclosing a copy of HSRResolution No. 

### 479and call your attention to the following language found on page 

### 6of this Resolution:

“‘RESOLVED, That each Memberof the House of Representat,ives of the Fifty-fifth Legislature, be, ygo;s hereby? allowed an additional Fifty Dollars each, with the Committee on Contingent Expens,es for expenditures of stationery, supplies, postage, telephone tolls, and/or telegraph tolls. These Members that have exceeded the amount heretofore authorized shall be entitled to have this additional amount paid from the Contingent Expense Fund, but no more. t

“You have in subsequent opinions advised concerning the legality of telephone and telegraph toll charges. Please advise meas to the legality of the expenditures of State funds for stationery, supplies andpostage for e~achmember of the House of Representatives for their use until the next meeting of the Legislature .I’ The aforementioned Resolution was adopted by the House on May

### 17,1957,and deals primarily with post session matters affecting the House. It is not clear whether the $50.00 allowance to each member therein made for stationery, supplies, postage, telephone tolls and/or telegraph tolls was to be expendedHonorable Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (Ww-177)

prior to adjournment or whet~her it was intended to be abetweensession allowance for each memberfor the purposes specified, or for both purposes.

Insofar as the resolution authorizes expenditures by members for said purposes prior to adjournment of the Legislature, wethink it clear that both the authorization, and the expenditures pursuant thereto, are permitted by law; but insofar as it might authorize between-session expenditures for any of said purposes, the great weight of authorities bywhich wemust be guided, prohibits same. The question presented is not one of first impression bii anymeans. Commencing with Attorney General’s Opin?on 

### O-377 (1941)the Attorney General has consistently held that compensation of.Legislators is strictly specified and limited by Section 

### 24of Article III of the Texas Constitution; that reimbursement for “personalUU as opposed to “legislative” expenses is ,in the nature of unauthorized compensation; and that the only expenses that are “legislative’t are those that relate to public purposes concerned with duties imposed by law on members of the Legislature. The above opinion treats the subject in an exhaustive manner, citing numerous court decisions of this and other jurisdictions in support of the proposition therein announced. To recapitulate such authorities at this time could only serve to unnecessarily prolong the opinion. See also: Attorney General’s Opinions numbered 

### v-84(1947)V-211(19471, v-772 (1949),MS-40 

### (19531,W-131 (19571,WW-146 

### (1957).We’ do however io: No. 

### O-3378

uote from that portion of attorney General’s Opin- 

### (1941)dealing with the distinction between a

“personal” and ‘Jlegislative” expense, as follows:

‘IIt is believed that the matter of Legislative andpersonal expense maybe rationalized~as follows. Legislative expense is that incident to the workings of the Legislature as an actual law-making body, as awholes, as the Legislature itself, when in session; through a special committee delegated by the Legislature while in session to work on alegislative matter between sessions; through personnel employed to close matters after adjournment; or through employees maintained between sessions for the care of the Legislative halls or for maintenance of a central office or clearing house for legislative matters between sessions. These expenses are for the mutual benefit of all members--for the Legislature itself. t8Personal expense, on the other hand, is that incurred, or which maybe incurred, by aMemberbetween sessions working under his ownwill, in his owndiscretion and as amatter of individual enterprise --. : -

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 

### '3 (W-177)

not as a part of the Legi~slature in session or .under extraordinary assignment from the body between sessions.

“If, therefore, an allowance of expenses to individual members of the Legislature during a session, or while on a committee assignment between sessions, is presumptively legislative expense, it does not follow that, an expense allowance to each member indiscriminately between sessions is likewise so. To the contrary, in our opinion the latter is presumptively personal expense.

“Essentially this view is grounded upon the historical and constitutional concept of aState legislative office together with the practical workings of the constitutional methods with reference thereto, and the discernible weight of the cases in support of such conclusion.” The foregoing authorities preclude our making ,anyvalid distinction between expenses for telephone tolls between session, with which Opinions 

### WI-131and

### W-148 were concerned, and expenses for stationery, supplies and postage. Wethink betweensession allowances for either, unless such expense occurred under such circumstances as to comewithin the definition of “legislative expense” as that term is defined above, would constitute an unlawful use of State funds.SUMMaRY

Insofar as HSR

### 479of the 55th Legislature mayauthorize members of the House of Representatives to expend State funds for stationery, supplies, postage, telephone tolls and/or telegraph tolls, between sessions of the Texas Legislature, same is invalid as authorizing the expenditure of State funds for anunlawful purpose. Very truly yours, WILLWILSON Attorney General of Texas

LP:PF:wb -Leonard Passmore AssistantHonorable Robert S. Calvert, page 4 (W-177)

APPROVED: 6P~NIO~‘~OMMITTEE: H. Grady Chandler; Chairman Larry Jones Joe Rollins Milton Richardson REVIEWED

FORTREATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Geo.'P. Blaciburn