DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tfp !Zlttornep @enera 

&ate of ZEexae 

January 30,1992 

Mr. Burton F. Raiford 

Interim Commissioner 

Opinion No. DM-81 

Texas Department of Human Services Re: Validity of a rider to the General 

P. 0. Box 149030 Appropriations Act that requires certain 

Austin, Texas 787149030 employees of state agencies to submit 

Snancial statements for review and 

approval by the board or commission to 

which the employees are responsible (RQ-198) 

Dear Commissioner Raiford: 

You have requested our opinion regarding article V, section 79, of the 

current General Appropriations Act. Acts 1991, 72d Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 19, art. V, 

5 79, at 1036. That rider provides: 

Sec. 79. FINANCIAL DISCLQSURB STATEMENTS. None 

of the funds appropriated to departments and agencies covered 

in Articles I through Iv shall be contractually obligated unless 

those employees who are responsible for entering into such 

contracts and for approving such expenditures have completed 

financial disclosure statements and these financial statements 

have been reviewed and approved by the board or commission 

to which each employee is responsible. All financial statements 

shall be on file in the administrative offices of the respective 

department or agency, shall be submitted to the responsible 

board or commission for approval annually, and shall be open to 

public inspection. 

In Attorney General Opinion JM-343 (1985). this office said that an identical 

rider in the 1985 General Appropriations Act, in order to be constitutionally valid, 

should not be construed as broader than article 6252-9b, V.T.C.S., a statute that 

required certain state officials and employees to file financial statements with the 

p. 405 
Mr. Burton F. Raiford - Page 2 (DM-81) 

secretary of state.1 (Article 6252-9b, V.T.C.S., now requires tinancial statements to 

be filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.) Attorney General Opinion JM343 

declared the following: 

The guidelines to be followed in determining which 

employees must file financial statements and the content of 

those statements, therefore, are the guidelines provided by 

article 6252-9b. The persons who must file statements under 

section 86 are those listed in article 6252-9b who are also 

responsible for entering into agency or department contracts 

and for approving expenditures thereunder. To comply with 

both article 6252-9b and the rider in the Appropriations Act, 

such persons who are in departments or agencies covered by 

articles I-IV of the Appropriations Act should 6le a financial 

statement with the secretary of state and annually submit a 

financial statement to the board, commission, or appropriate 

administrator who will review and approve the statement under 

the provisions of the new rider. This filing requirement is not 

unconstitutionally inconsistent with article 6252-9b. a 

V.T.C.S. art. 6252-9b, 5 9(a); Attorney General Opinion M-1199 

(1972). A copy of the financial statement should remain on file 

in the department’s or agency’s administrative office and be 

open to public inspection. 

In our opinion, Attorney General Opinion JM-343 is a generally correct 

statement of the law. We disagree, however, with its statement that the additional 

“filing requirement is not unconstitutionally inconsistent with article 6252-9b.” 

Article 6252-9b requires only the filing of a financial disclosure statement with the 

Texas Ethics Commission. An appropriation bill may “detail, limit, or restrict the 

use of funds therein appropriated or otherwise insure that the appropriated money 

will be spent for the purpose intended.” Attorney General Opinion M-1199 (1972) 

lAttomey General Opinion JIM-343 failed to note aa aaomaly ia the rider: there is little 

likelihood that a statute would deem mere employeea to be “respoasible for entering into.. . contracts 

and for approving.. . expenditures.” Approval of contracts aad axpeaditares, as opposed to contract 

n-on, is odrmily a respoas~bility of the govemiag body of the agency, i.e., the board or 

commission itself. See Attorney General Opinion JM-817 (1987); Letter Advisory No. 148 (1977). 

Members of a board or commksioa are indeed cowed by article 62S2-9b. Under this conwwtioa, 

the rider is not so much invalid as it is superfluoas. 

P- 406 
Mr. Burton F. Raiford - Page 3 (DM-E~) 

at 1; see Moom v. Sheppard. 192 S.W.2d 559 (1946); Attorney General Opinions 

MW-51 (1979); V-1253 (1951). A rider to an appropriations bill may not, however, 

“repeal, modify or amend an existing general law.” Attorney General Opinion M1199. To the extent that the rider under consideration imposes an additional filing 

requirement on those persons covered by article 6252-9b. we believe it attempts to 

modify a general law, and is, therefore, invalid. 

We note that shortly after the issuance of Attorney General Opinion JM-343, 

the electorate adopted article XVI, section 69, of the Texas Constitution, commonly 

known as the ‘budget execution amendment.” That amendment reads, in its 

entirety: 

The legislature may require, by rider in the General 

Appropriations Act or by separate statute, the prior approval of 

the expenditure or the emergency transfer of any funds 

appropriated to the agencies of state government. 

In our opinion, the rider about which you inquire does not fall within the exception 

of article XVI, section 69. The rider requires a board’s approval of an employee’s 

+nciul statement, not the approval of any expenditure. Furthermore, the language 

of article XVI, section 69, of the Texas Constitution seems to require approval by 

some person or entity outside the particular agency that is .the subject of the 

appropriation. It would seem to serve no purpose to require an agency’s governing 

body to approve its own decisions about expenditures. 

SUMMARY 

Article V, section 79, of the current General Appropriations 

Act, which requires certain employees of state agencies to 

submit financial statements for review and approval by the 

board or commission to which the employees are responsible, is 

constitutionally invalid to the extent that it expands or is 

inconsistent with article 6252-9b, V.T.C.S. It is valid to the 

extent that it merely restates that statute. Guidelines applicable 

to the rider are those provided by the statute. The rider’s 

p. 407 
Mr. Burton F. Raiford - Page 4 (DM-81) 

requirement that the affected employee file with his board is 

constitutionally invalid. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL. PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLJE STEAKLEY (Ret.) 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEAHIcK!3 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Rick Giipin 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 408