0LI.N.D c. MANN

..r- .**.=a 

### i I

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Honorable Howard Bartcog Coamltteeon state Mralrm Bouae of Repr*mntetlrrr Aurtln, Texa8

Dear Sin Uuoh 4, 1939

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

The Texan SupremeCourt her repeatedlyheld that thio provision forbida the Legirlaturrto 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,oaseoi Klgbroughva. 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 ?uaotioarot~gorornaeatior the 8tste aad oouatissend some subdivisionsof 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 ooavontlendid not drslra or Intend that publio servantsOS this stats shouldhold 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 Lsglslaturrss to suoh o??fo6s as It tight orsets.m

Statutesand ordlaaaoeswhloh **ham attempted**  **to oreatr**  **of fioes**  for a tsmloagar then two years bar0 bean drolarsduaooastltutione1. Sen Aatonlo Iadepsodsnt Sohool Distriotvs. 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 (roversod830 S.W. lOlO!.

As will hsrsiaefter bs shown, the term "o??iooWas **uwd** la Xrtlole 16, Sootion 30, of the Constitutiondoes not apply to all posltloas or emplomsat of ths stats or its 8ubdlvl8lon8, but only to oertaln olassrs a? ponltlons. Thn Constitutiondoss 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 derinltlonsto spsol?iobordorllasoases is 

### l xtmmsly diffloult. Considerable ooniusionexists in the Texas oases in applying the dsflnitioasto apsoltio lnstenoss in distlagulshiagbatwesn *o?rlosrsWand other olassifloation8.

Ths most iavorsddoiiaitioaOf the term 'otilos",nhioh has
men quotedwith aFprova1many 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, authorityend duty oreatsdaad oontsrrabby law, by whioh, for a given period, rlther fixed by law or enduring at the pleasuroof ths orsating **power,** aa lndividual Ii lovestedwith some portion o? the SOYrrslga iuaotioaso? 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 ooniorrlngof 8n offloe involves
a delog8.tioa

to the bdlvidual 0s 80~ 0s the mt

### l 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 log**iSl8tiV0,** e1eoutlve,or JudioI81,sttaohro for the tlsm being, to be l xerolsedfor th.8

publio boiwlt. Un)oss the powers oonirrredlrb of this nature, the individual 18 not a publio offloer.'
As a guide for the app1io8tioaof this de?iaitloa, 18t us examine speo~fIo inat8noeswherein the Texas courts have dlstla- @shed between **an** otfiobr end a non-otfioer, and the orlterla UpOn which they have based euoh diatlaotions. PolIoemenwere held to br Wot?loersRwlthia the meaning of Artiole 16, SeotIon 30, of the Coastltutlon in McDonald, et al. ve. City 0s D8118s,et al. (D8il88ct. 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**  “Pea00OtfioeP **by** Artiol. 36 of th. Code of Crlmla81Prooedura, 1928, Polioemenaad SIremen bare beon regardedes 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~ovlsioaso? the Houston Oh8Pter,polioemsohold or?Qe for two years on good **behavior,** but that baaawe of Artiole 16, Seotlon 30, 0s the Coa8titutioD, they oeased to be 0rri00riu0 jure two years from their appointment, unless reappointed.

In Ellis vs. Holoombr,69 **S.W.** (2d) 449, writ of error ro**fused,** the oourt deolared that the asuperinteDdoat of the identltioation bureau of the pollee dspartmentof the oity l + * 18 not an orfloer 0s the olty, but **8** highly qualifiedoxpert 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 ofrioerhad not been oreatsdby the oharter for the reason that it did not epeoifythe aumbar of suoh 0tri0e8. The oourt **said:** ‘Aa ordinaD0~attemptingto oreate aa lndeflnitenumber o? o?fiOeSwithout **8** maximum limitationIs 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. KImbroughvs. Barnett,(Tex.Se Ct. 19001, 93 Tex. 301, 55 S.W. 120; but an aaelsteatCounty Sohool Superinteadent was held not to be an otfloer,Reeper vs+ SteN8rt (EastlandCt. Civ. App. 19331, 66 s.w. (2d) 812, writ 0s error refused. In this
oaee the court said that since the Superintendentshouldat 8ll timea have the right to disohaqe his asaistentbeoause he was reepoasible for his ants. auoh asalatantehould not be oonslderedan offioer. IorH4aorabl8Eow8rd 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 doolarodthat the ohie? clerks of the Comptrolhr end &or.- tary of State were offlosr8, fOT the r8esonthat they perform their duties *by vlrtuo of authorityof the LogirleturoID the 08~8 ray that thblr ohlots p8rforA thea.’

‘Th8 Deputy Sherlr? 18 en o??iOsrknowa 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 sohoolboard are otfioers. Son Antonio IadspendantSohool Distriotvs. State, 193 S.W. 525, wit of error r8- fused,ea are wmbers of a board of road oomaiesIoners,CoauaisaIoaare* Court of Llmsstone County vs. Gwrett, Tax. CoamI or Appeals, 1922, 236 S.W. 970. A deputy SUp@~V~SOr 8ppoLntrdby the Railroad Commlssloawas deolared to be an **ottioer** by 8 oonferenoeopLaIon a? C. bi. Cui-aton,

Attorney Oeneral, fOT the re8soa, la pert, that the statute **used** ths word WappolntWfather than W@eaplOym.Spoolal OOUAse1 employedby the Attorney Generalwas 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 reletIoaRto the ittoraepGeneral. ti assistantoity attorneywe8 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 dlstiaotlonbetwea the drsIga8tIonof *888ist8ntm and Wdeputym, Implyiag that doputl88are 0rrI0ers but assIstantsam 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 providedSOT the posltlonand prssorlbed that he **take** the oath of offior, After quoting Wohesi’s de?iDItiOD
**0s** 80 0rri00, quotedabove, 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 thereofmay ooatlnuo for **a** period loagsr than two years, yet there Is no ruoh eov8rrIgafuaotloa 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 foregoingdealsionsof the oourta, and ettelsptlng

to apply ttm various orlterle aug-lsated by them, we oan safely cooolude that all personswho are 8lentadto their position8 are aof?loers’

within the mseniag of Art1018 16, SeotIoa 30, of the Coast:tutlon,

and of those persons ,obteining their posltioasby ap-Ronorablr ROwardtfWt&O~, Maroh 4, 1959, &gO 6

pointmWlt,01&y tboM are ofiioorrw&o are authorIt,&br statute
to pertorn govornme&al funotlonr ln their own right Involving 8op* exorolroOS dlsorrtlon. All others are not offloors, but mom OSployr*s.

We bslIe?e that the two year llmftatfonor 

### tenuraprosorlbedby ArtIolo 10, Sdotlon 30, OtiT to woffioo#aan defined above, of the Tours Constitutionapplier and -would

not apply to ‘mere lmploy8~ rlthin departmentssuoh as stenographerr, ,mto.*

Your third questionreads:
“If au enp1oy.euithln a departmentin Term Is not an otflorrwould a merit systemwith eeourity oi tenure based upon competenoabe oonstltutIona1 tor more than two years?*

It 18’our oplnlon that a oIvI1 ssrvioestatute providing for tenure of off100 on good behavior and efiloirnt rervioo would \ not violate the two year tenure provisionof the Constitutionar applied to Stute 

### l

mplopsecl

v&a are not Wotiloer6*. The oi.vil servioe provI8lom la many olty ohartsrshave 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 oharterrhave **been** applied to *ofiloo s* vie0f 8UOh a# polloaraen, the oourtr have *read into* the ait tsar- ~provlaions

the oonatitutional two year llaltation,8o a8 not to invalidatethe oivil servioaprovisions. Callagbam,Uayor ~‘8. l6oOorn 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 obarterrthat offloors rhall hold their posltlonaduring rfiiolsnt sarvioeand good behavior; these nil1 be oonstrued In oonneotlonwith the Constitutionto uiean that positionsrhall be held during good behavior for a psrlod not 

### l r oeedlng

two year@.* Questiontour made:

*En view of the above,would a rtate oivil servio;e

systsm for departmentalemployeesb6 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**