0LI.N.D c. MANN 

..r- .**.=a 

i I 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Howard Bartcog 

Coamlttee on state Mralrm 

Bouae of Repr*mntetlrrr 

Aurtln, Texa8 

Dear Sin 

Uuoh 4, 1939 

UtfOi@ 16, SWiiOII 30, Or the COtMtftUtiOiI Or.TeX8s prorider in part t *The duration of all otfioee not fixed by this Conrtltutlon rhall no~er eroesd tro year8 ’ * *.” 

The Texan Supreme Court her repeatedly held that thio provision forbida the Legirlaturr to oreato the term of any offfoe for 

more than two yearr. The rOBIOtI for this prO+h%O13 iI W43ii f#tated 

by the Suprose Court ln the,oase oi Klgbrough va. Barwtt (1900) 95 

Tex. 301, 85 S,I, 120, in the opinion by Brown, I., et pa@ 121: 
morablo Xouard Xartrog, Msroh 4, 19S9, Pago 2 

*The oomoatlon whioh frmsd our Coastitution nalrd tb priaolpal o??~oors who mm to 

disohargs ths ?uaotioar ot~gorornaeat ior the 

8tste aad oouatiss end some subdivisions of 

oountlom, end to l aoh aemsd otrlor iron Oorrrnor to ooastrblr, exorpt notary publlo, ilxsd 

a tam ior whloh it should bs hold. The terns 

rsngod from 81x years for ths l ppsllats oourts 

and railroad oomalssionsrs down to two years 

ror alwst rrsry other 0rri0e. It is menirs8t 

that the ooavontlen did not drslra or Intend 

that publio servants OS this stats should hold 

their O??lo@r for a great lragth O? time, but 

it we8 the polloy that they should return to 

the power uador rhioh they rsosivsd their authority tar its rrnswsl at rhort intervals; aad 

having appllod this rule to all thr o??lOss 

newd by them, revs the one, it plaosd a lititatloa u on thr aotlon o? thr Lsglslaturr ss to 

suoh o??fo6s as It tight orsets.m 

Statutes and ordlaaaoes whloh ham attempted to oreatr offioes for a tsmloagar then two years bar0 bean drolarsd uaooastltutione1. Sen Aatonlo Iadepsodsnt Sohool Distriot vs. State, (ct. Civ. 

App:, writ of error refused) 173 8.W. 525; OOmm1sslonor8* Court o? 

Llmsst s Oouaty, et sl. 18~ Osrrstt st al. (TPx. Comm. hpp.i 19221 

236 s. 8? 970 (roversod 830 S.W. lOlO!. 

As will hsrsiaefter bs shown, the term "o??iooW as uwd la 

Xrtlole 16, Sootion 30, of the Constitution does not apply to all posltloas or emplomsat of ths stats or its 8ubdlvl8lon8, but only to 

oertaln olassrs a? ponltlons. Thn Constitution doss aot attempt to 

define ths geaerlo terms a0fri00* or ~orriorrs~. Xeay goaoral dsrlnitions can be louad in the text book8 ead oases, bus tha applloat 

tloa or thsss derinltlons to spsol?io bordorllas oases is l xtmmsly 

diffloult. Considerable ooniusion exists in the Texas oases in applying the dsflnitioas to apsoltio lnstenoss in distlagulshiag batwesn *o?rlosrsW and other olassifloation8. 

Ths most iavorsd doiiaitioa Of the term 'otilos", nhioh has 

men quoted with aFprova1 many times by Texas oourts, is the ens given 

ay Ysoheia In his work on Pub110 Offlosrs, as tollous: * 

*A publio o??ios is the right, authority end 

duty oreatsd aad oontsrrab by law, by whioh, for 

a given period, rlther fixed by law or enduring 

at the pleasuro of ths orsating power, aa lndividual Ii lovested with some portion o? the SOYrrslga iuaotioas o? goveramsat, to be exeroiasd 

by him for the benefit o? ths publlo* l *. The 

most imwrtent ohareotsristio whloh d1stSnRuiehss 
. 

5 

s 

. 

Honorable Boward Hartsog, llaroh 4, 1909, %gs 8 

the oreatloa 8ad ooniorrlng of 8n offloe involves 

a delog8.tioa to the bdlvidual 0s 80~ 0s the mtl r*ign runotloas 0s gorermwnt, to be sx*rolsod by 

him for the benefit a? the pUbllO; that SOW portion 0s the sovereignty 0s ths oouatry, either logiSl8tiV0, e1eoutlve, or JudioI81, sttaohro for the 

tlsm being, to b e l xerolsed for th.8 publio boiwlt. 

Un)oss the powers oonirrred l rb of this nature, the 

individual 18 not a publio offloer.' 

As a guide for the app1io8tioa of this de?iaitloa, 18t us 

examine speo~fIo inat8noes wherein the Texas courts have dlstla- 

@shed between an otfiobr end a non-otfioer, and the orlterla UpOn 

which they have based euoh diatlaotions. PolIoemen were held to br 

Wot?loersR wlthia the meaning of Artiole 16, SeotIon 30, of the Coastltutlon in McDonald, et al. ve. City 0s D8118s, et al. (D8il88 ct. 

of 01~. App 1934) 69 S.W. (2d) 175, 8fritn~d by Suprome Court in 

98 S.W. (2df 167 reversed on other grounds In 10s S.W. (26) 725 

and 107 S.W. (2df 987. The Court o? Civil Appeals pointsd out that 

8 polioem8n W88 deflned 88 8 “Pea00 OtfioeP by Artiol. 36 of th. 

Code of Crlmla81 Prooedura, 1928, Polioemen aad SIremen bare beon 

regarded es ottloers. Callaghaa, Yayor vs. Mo0oua (Ct. 0s civ. App. 

19061, 90 8.w. 319, writ or error rerusd. In olty or rhoton VS. 

Albers, 32 Tex. Cir, App. 70, 73 9.1, lOS4, it *as held that under 

tha Qlvll Ssrvioo p~ovlsioas o? the Houston Oh8Pter, polioemso hold 

or?Qe for two years on good behavior, but that baaawe of Artiole 

16, Seotlon 30, 0s the Coa8titutioD, they oeased to be 0rri00ri u0 

jure two years from their appointment, unless reappointed. 

In Ellis vs. Holoombr, 69 S.W. (2d) 449, writ of error rofused, the oourt deolared that the asuperinteDdoat of the identltioation bureau of the pollee dspartment of the oity l + * 18 not an 

orfloer 0s the olty, but 8 highly qualified oxpert employee norkin& 

in the poUor depertmeDt Of the o%tr.* On thr other hand, a rarrent 

officer in the 08me pol%oe department ~88 held to bo 8II “oftloer” 

the Texas Supremb Court In Holoombe vs. Umte, 102 S.W. (2d) X041, 

by 

ii suoh otfioe had evtw been legally oroated. ID this oasr It mar 

held that the 0rri00 0s warrant ofrioer had not been oreatsd by the 

oharter for the reason that it did not epeoify the aumbar of suoh 

0tri0e8. The oourt said: ‘Aa ordinaD0~ attempting to oreate aa 

lndeflnite number o? o?fiOeS without 8 maximum limitation Is void.’ 

A olty olerk has been held to br 8a offloer, State ex r81. Bovee 

v8. Catlin, 04 Tax. 48, 19 S.X. 302. A oity Superintendent of 

sohools Is an ottIoer. KImbrough vs. Barnett,(Tex. Se Ct. 19001, 

93 Tex. 301, 55 S.W. 120; but an aaelsteat County Sohool Superinteadent was held not to be an otfloer, Reeper vs+ SteN8rt (Eastland Ct. 

Civ. App. 19331, 66 s.w. (2d) 812, writ 0s error refused. In this 

oaee the court said that since the Superintendent should at 8ll timea 

have the right to disohaqe his asaistent beoause he was reepoasible 

for his ants. auoh asalatant ehould not be oonsldered an offioer. Ior 
H4aorabl8 Eow8rd X8rlisoi5, Yaroh 4, lOSO, F8ga 4 

the s8a8 meson 8 deputy ubll0 mIgh8r was hold Lo bs 8~ mDffiser* 

in tlndlry vs. Callowey, P 

681. 

Da1148 ct. of Dir. App, 192s) 248 8.W. 

In Pr~rrer VS. u8hnk0, 260 8.11. losl, the ~IE&BS~OD 0s ADpeals doolarod that the ohie? clerks of the Comptrolhr end &or.- 

tary of State were offlosr8, fOT the r8eson that they perform their 

duties *by vlrtuo of authority of the Logirleturo ID the 08~8 ray 

that thblr ohlots p8rforA thea.’ 

‘Th8 Deputy Sherlr? 18 en o??iOsr knowa to the 18rS ’ l .” 

Towns vn. Harris, 13 Tax. 507. 

an 0rri04r. 

Likerim a deputy oounty olerk la 

Dongas ~6~ Bsall, 41 &Vi. (i3d) bS1, writ of error refused. bfembsrn of e sohool board are otfioers. Son Antonio Iadspendant Sohool Distriot vs. State, 193 S.W. 525, wit of error r8- 

fused, ea are wmbers of a board of road oomaiesIoners, CoauaisaIoa

are* Court of Llmsstone County vs. Gwrett, Tax. CoamI or Appeals, 

1922, 236 S.W. 970. A deputy SUp@~V~SOr 8ppoLntrd by the Railroad 

Commlssloa was deolared to be an ottioer by 8 oonferenoe opLaIon a? 

C. bi. Cui-aton, Attorney Oeneral, fOT the re8soa, la pert, that the 

statute used ths word WappolntW father than W@eaplOym. Spoolal OOUAse1 employed by the Attorney General was held not to bs aD offiosr 

by the Suprem Court ID Terre11 vs. Sperkm, 104 Tar. 191, MS S.19. 

519, for the reason that he was not required to take the oath of oftier aad “had no offioie1 reletIoaR to the ittoraep General. ti assistant oity attorney we8 held not to be an o??loer, Rail vs. Stat&, 

59 Grim. Rep. 4S4, 129 S.iV. 630. In this 0888 the oourt drew 8 dlstiaotlon betwea the drsIga8tIon of *888ist8ntm and Wdeputym, Implyiag that doputl88 are 0rrI0ers but assIstants am not. IA th8 oam 

o? jibbertsoa vs. El110 County !Ct, of Of+. App.) S4 S.W. 1097, the 

oourt held that a dlstrlot court stsnogrepher was not m~offiorr, 

47411 though the L4glsl8tiare provided SOT the posltlon and prssorlbed 

that he take the oath of offior, After quoting Wohesi’s de?iDItiOD 

0s 80 0rri00, quoted above, the oourt held that the two year linitatloa of Artlolo 18, Section 30, did not apply to 8 ooiwt steaogrephar , aeylag: 

“we ooaoluds that while the ~SitiOA 0s 4 

4t4OOgr8ph4r, under the atetute in thl8 stat@, 

any be, In a sense, an otflor, and the tell 

thereof may ooatlnuo for a period loagsr than 

two years, yet there Is no ruoh eov8rrIga fuaotloa of government rmbraoad la the powers oonfsrred.upon the lndlvldual pm?omIag its duties as 

brlags it within the msaalag Of the word 'OfflC4' 

es used in the motion of the COastItUtiOa ‘quoted.” 

Based upon the foregoing dealsions of the oourta, and ettelsptlng to apply ttm various orlterle aug-lsated by them, we oan 

safely cooolude that all persons who are 8lentad to their position8 

are aof?loers’ within the mseniag of Art1018 16, SeotIoa 30, of the 

Coast:tutlon, and of those persons ,obteining their posltioas by ap- 
Ronorablr ROward tfWt&O~, Maroh 4, 1959, &gO 6 

pointmWlt, 01&y tboM are ofiioorr w&o are authorIt,& br statute 

to pertorn govornme&al funotlonr ln their own right Involving 8op* 

exorolro OS dlsorrtlon. All others are not offloors, but mom OSployr*s. 

We bslIe?e that the two year llmftatfon or tenura prosorlbed by ArtIolo 10, Sdotlon 30, 

OtiT to woffioo#a an defined above, 

of the Tours Constitution applier 

and -would not apply to ‘mere l mploy8~ rlthin departments suoh as stenographerr, ,mto.* 

Your third question reads: 

“If au enp1oy.e uithln a department in Term 

Is not an otflorr would a merit system with eeourity oi tenure based upon competenoa be oonstltutIona1 tor more than two years?* 

It 18’our oplnlon that a oIvI1 ssrvioe statute providing 

for tenure of off100 on good behavior and efiloirnt rervioo would \ 

not violate the two year tenure provision of the Constitution ar applied to Stute l mplopsecl v&a are not Wotiloer6*. The oi.vil servioe 

provI8lom la many olty ohartsrs have been upheld as valid. Callaghan, klayor va. MoOown, 90 S.W. 919, writ of error rriueed; Rolooabo 

vs. Orate, Tex. S, Ct. 1937;102 S.?i. (26) 1041. skoreover, wbbre 

olvll #en100 ,provlsIom in olty oharterr have been applied to *ofiloo s* 

vie 0f 

8UOh a# polloaraen, the oourtr have *read into* the ait tsar

~provlaions the oonatitutional two year llaltation, 8o a8 not to 

invalidate the oivil servioa provisions. Callagbam, Uayor ~‘8. l6oOo

suprr; Oitf of Rourton v8. Albert, 73 9.K. W&i; ?% Tex. Jur. 365: 

*And thr provialon (Art. 16, Sso. 30) la not vlolstod by oivll mrvioo provlaionr In rtatute and munloIpa1 obarterr that offloors rhal

hold their posltlona during rfiiolsnt sarvioe and good behavior; 

these nil1 be oonstrued In oonneotlon with the Constitution to uiean 

that positions rhall be held during good behavior for a psrlod not 

l r o eedtwo lnyear@.* g 

Question tour made: 

*En view of the above, would a rtate oivil 

servio;e systsm for departmental employees b6 oonstitutional?” 

So far aa Article 16, SeotIon 301 ia oonoerneh, it is Our 

opinion that it would not be unoonstltutional. Fe xould, 0r ooulwe, 

be unable to paer upon all other possible phase8 of suoh an aot with
Honorable Eoward Xartso6, Yuoh 4, 1939, Pag8 8 

out bivlm~ the l ot ltreli before ~8. 

Tour8 very truly 

iiTTQRNSP OENSRAL OF TEXAS 

BY -n;“ti 

Salter R. ltooh 

lisel rtant 

WRK:FO