DAN MORALES

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

## QBffice

oftfp !Zlttornep@enera &ate ofZEexae January 30,1992

Mr.Burton F.Raiford Interim Commissioner Opinion No.DM-81 TexasDepartment ofHuman 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, 579,at 1036. That rider provides:

Sec. 79. FINANCIAL DISCLQSURB STATEMENTS. None ofthe 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 whicheach employee isresponsible. 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 1985General 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. 405Mr. Burton F.Raiford -Page 2 (DM-81)

secretary of state.1 (Article 6252-9b,V.T.C.S.,nowrequires 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 willreview 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,59(a); Attorney General Opinion M-1199 (1972). A copy ofthe financial statement should remain on file in the department’s or agency’s administrative office and be open topublic inspection. In our opinion, Attorney General Opinion JM-343 is a generally correct statement ofthe law. We disagree, however, with its statement that the additional
“filing requirement is not unconstitutionally inconsistent with article 6252-9b.” Article 6252-9brequires only the filing of a financial disclosure statement with the Texas Ethics Commission. An appropriation bill may “detail, limit, or restrict the use offunds therein appropriated or otherwise insure that the appropriated money willbe 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 astatute 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~bilityof 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 isnot somuch invalidasitissuperfluoas.

P- 406Mr.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 existinggeneral 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 ageneral law,and is,therefore, invalid. Wenote that shortly after the issuance ofAttorney General Opinion JM-343, the electorate adopted article XVI, section 69,ofthe 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 ofstate government. In our opinion, the rider about whichyou 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 ofany expenditure. Furthermore, the language of article XVI, section 69, ofthe 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’sgoverning body to approve itsowndecisions about expenditures. 

### SUMMARY Article V,section 79,ofthe 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. 407Mr. Burton F.Raiford -Page4 (DM-81)

requirement that the affected employee file with his board is constitutionally invalid.

DAN MORALES Attorney General ofTexas 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 byRick Giipin Assistant Attorney General

p. 408