# THE ATFORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

**JOEN Ia.**  **EILL** Arnwrm% **TEXAS** 78711 *TroRNmY O-Ard August 14, 1973
The Honorable Jack K. Williams President, Texas A &M University College Station, Texas 77843 Opinion No. H- 86 Re: Entitlement to and

maximum State contribution for insurance coverage. Dear Mr. Williams: You have requested our opinion on several questions having to dowith the authorized State contribution to the premiums of group insurance policies insuring State employees. Articles 3. 50 and 3. 51ofthe Texas Insurance Code authorize group policies of life. and health insurance. As amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1002, ch.437, ‘Article 3. 51now permits .State agencies and certain political subdivisions ofthe State to pay premiums on such policies

“in whole or inpart from funds contributed by the employer. I’ Your first question is whether the current rider to the General Appropriations Act for 1974-1975 limits the State’s contribution to not in excess of $12. 50per month for credit to the premium of each full-time employee. The rider provides:

‘I..
. The state’s contribution per full-time individual employee covered by any policy or policies shall not be greater than Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) per month for each month ofthe insurance contract year. The method used to calculate the total yearly amount tobe paid by agencies covered by this Act shall be One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150) times the number of employees actually covered under any policy or policies.
. . . ” (Acts 1973, H.B. 139, V-38, $10)

p. 390The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 2 (H-86)

The rider contained inthe 1971 General Appropriations Act was less precise in its meaning. It simply read:

‘1.
. . Payment by the state from the designated funds on any policy or policies shall be limited to Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) per month per full-time employee. ‘I (Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., 1st. C. S., Art. V., $10, p.V-38) Attorney General Opinion M-919 (1971) construed the 1971restriction to define amonthly aggregate expenditure reached by multiplying $12. 50times thenumber of full-time employees on the departmental payroll. It declared that neither Articles 3. 50 or 3. 51ofthe Insurance Code, or the Appropriation Bill rider placed aminimum or amaximum onthe contribution that a department might make to the cost ofpremiums on an individual employee. Subsequently, the language ofthe rider was an-ended toprovide:

‘1.
. * The maximum payment by the State for any individual employee on any policy or policies shall not exceed Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) per month per full-time employee
. . . .I’ (Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., 3rd C.S., S.B.1, p.V-37, $10) Attorney General Opinion M-1229 (1972) ruled that no substantial change in effect had been made by the changed language and that the conclusions made by Attorney General Opinion M-919 remained operative. We need not determine whether those prior opinions were correct. The new language ofthe rider inHouse Bill 139, coupled with the unusually frequent change inthe language of corresponding riders over the years, is evidence that a different legislative intent now prevails. Under House Bill 139 the aggregate yearly amount expendable is controlled by the language: “$150 time the number of employees actually covered by any policy or policies. ” We think the unqualified word “employees” includes part-time employees. We are ofthe opinion that the $12. 50 “per full-time employee ” limitation is intended to signify the maximum permissible monthly contribution toward the cost of the premiums for any individual full-time employee , or combined part-time equivalents.

p. 391The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 3 (H-86)

Inour opinion the rider is not in conflict with, nor does itamend, .any general legislation. Itdoes limit, detail and restrict the use of State funds appropriated by line-item for insurance purposes and is for that reason “germane” to the subject of appropriations and not violative ofArticle 3, $35 ofthe Constitution. See Attorney General Opinions M-1199 (1972) and V-1254 (1951). Concerning insurance programs, the discretion conferred upon agencies by Article 3. 50 and 3. 51, Insurance Code, is pre-existing statutory authority for the use of State funds for payment of employee insurance premiums for either (or both) full-time or part-time employees. The funding of such aprogram is, as always, subject to there being an appropriation ofState funds by the Legislature. Inthis instance, the Legislature has ‘authorized the expenditure of $12. 50per month per full-time employee covered~by any policy or policies, whether infull or partial payment ,ofpremiums. See Linden v. Finley, 49 S.W. 578 (Tex. 1899), and Conley v; Daughters ofthe Republic, 156 S.W. 197 (Tex. 1913). Inour view, “per full-time individual employee” requires a ratio approach topart-time employees and, atthe same time, indicates alimitation upon payments on behalf of individual employees. The amount ofpremium paid for each part-time employee is to be dependent upon the.relationship which his service bears to that of afull-time employee. However, inno case would an individual employee, full or part-time, ever be entitled to have more than $12.50 par month paid toward the cost of group insurance premiums. Therefore, it is our opinion that House Bill 139, Acts 1973,, V-38, $10 does limit the State’s contribution toward the cost of an individual full-time employee’s insurance premiums for group insurance authorized by Articles 3. 50 and 3. 51, Texas Insurance Code, to $12. 50per month. We have already answered your second question, which is whether aless than full-time employee should receive aproportionate contribution of State funds to his monthly premiums of group insurance. No statute requires agencies to extend insurance programs to their active employees, full or part-time; or, ifaprogram is extended, topay any portion ofpremium. The agency or university may pay all, none, or any portion of a

p. 392The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 4 (H-86)

part-time individual’s premium whether or not itpays premiums for full-time employees. Itmust extend eligibility inlife insurance programs to all employees, but itneed not pay premiums for all ofthem. See Art. 3.50, ,Texas Insurance Code. However, if it does pay premiums for part-time employees, the maximum amount itmay pay is limited by theAppropriation Bill to an amount which bears to $12. 50the same ratio that the service ofthe part-time employee bears to that of afull-time employee (“per full-time individual employee”). A lesser contribution is within the agency’s discretion. Finally, you ask if a regular academic year teacher iseligible for premium contributions for the summer months the teacher is not teaching and is not otherwise onthe payroll. Our answer is that ifthe teacher is under a contract of employment which continues through the summer or under atenured contract which continues indefinitely, he should be considered an “employee” ofthe university for the summer months and eligible’ for State contribution tohis premiums. Ifhis employment is terminated inMay, then he is no longer qualified to receive a contribution from the State toward his insuranc~e premiums; SUMMARY The new language restricting the use of funds appropriated for insurance purposes under House Bill 139 requires that the State’s contribution to the premium of any individual full-time employee “shall not be greater” than $12. 50per month during any month ofthe insurance contract year. A part-time employee may receive aproportionate contribution ofState funds to his insurance premiums and a professor, ifhe remains an employee over the summer months, is eligible to receive the State’s contribution for that period. ry truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas

p. 393The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 5 (H-86)

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 394