The Attorney General of Texas 

August 31, 1979 

MARK WHITE 

AttomeyGemeal 

FIonomble Wi@am P. Clemen& Jr. 

Gova’nuroftheState(dTexas 

state captto1 

AustSn,Texas 78711 

Honorable Bill Rearal 

Chai?U&Wl 

Committee m &woprhtiom 

House of Representativea 

hutin, Texas 76769 

OpInionNo. 24w-51 

Rer Authority of the Governor to 

veto certain mlons of the 

General ApprcphtIcns Act 

lionomble Homer A. Foerster 

RxecuHveMreota 

~StdeBoarddCUltWl 

LBJ State Offioe Butlding 

hwtin,Texsa 767U 

Gentlemar: 

~anybillpresaateLttotheGov~~~~recraal 

itecarofap~ionhcmayobfcct-tooncormorc 

of such items, and eppkve the other poetica of the 

bill. InsuchcaseherhalleippendtotkbiU,~ttbe 

time of signin& a statement of the itema to which 

he~f2ctq and no item so djected to shall teke 

. . . 

Thus, the Goveax& authority to veto podons of the appropriations 

bill extend only to “items of approprlation.n In determining whether a 

P. 156 
Honorable William P. Clemks, Jr. 

Honorable Bill Presnal - PageTwo (Mw-51) 

Honorable Homer A. Foerster 

portion of the eppropriatiaw bill constituted en item of appropriation end was thus subject 

‘to Veto the Supreme Court recently state& 

It can be add then that the term Item of rpproprhticn’ 

cantempletes the setting aside or dedicating of funds for a 

specified purpose This ip to be distinguIshed from language which 

qualifies Q directs the tne of w&ted funds Q which h merely 

incidental to en mtiab. laqwge of the letter sort is 

cleerly not subject to veta 

. . . . 

U the lmguege & intended to set e&e fuM3 for e rpecifkd 

p ur pit aLpp sn e, Stem of l pprcpdation’ end is therefore aubjeet to 

veto by the Governor. Otberwbe, the Governor must veto the 

entire bill ‘or let the objectionable part stand, . . . 

Jesen Associates, Ik. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.Zd 593,599 (Tex. 1975). 

The ally edditfalel *uthoruy to lBappd@ 8 bill in whokisthet 

given to object to M item or Stem8 where a,bill contains several 

items, of eppropriatia It follows ccncl@vely thet where * veto 

~power is attempted to be exercised to objeM to ,a paragnph or 

~~of~btllothathanuritcmor,ittms,ortotanguagt 

qualllOtneM~t~adf~.ths,methodcdits~he 

exceeda * constltt@mel l uthc+ity vested in him, and his 

abjection to such paregmph, or portion ,of a bill, or language 

qualifyin& an approprfatiar, ar directing the methokof Its use, 

becomes noneffective. 

Fulmore v. Len+ NO saw. 405, u2 clb. l9lll. see ekw Attic Generel opinsons 16499 

?l972X Y-1196 UQSI). 

Representative Presnel questions seven specific vetoes. The first ,portion of thc.bill 

which is the subject of a questiartd veto ~videsz 

The Bowl of Regents of The University of Texas System is 

hereby authorized to wd such ‘amount of its PamaneM 

University Fund bond proceeds and/or other bond proceeds end such 

ernount,of its other available moneys us may be necessary to fund, 

in whole or in pert, alterations and additions to the Sun Bowl 

p* 157 
Honorable William P. Clements, Jr. 

Honorable Bill Presnal - Ps6eThree (JJW-51) 

Honorable Homer A. Foerster 

Stadium which k located on tha campus of The Univ&ity of Texas 

at El Paso. 

In all relevant respects the lan6uage of this rider k identical to the rider before the 

Supreme Court in Jensen. See P&c. Cede 9 6LO58. Accordingly, we believe it k beyond 

question that the-shad no legal authority to veto this rider, and thus the 

purported veto MS no effect 

Governor Clements asks if the rider violates article VI& section 6 of the 

canstituUon which requires that epproprhtiats be specific. Since the Jemen court 

con&&d that thk langnsge did not constitute an independent appropriaek not 

necessary to measure it agahwt the requirements of article VIII, section 6. See also 

Jemen, supra, at 599-600, II. 8 for a description of types of funds which might be covered 

under the language of the rider. Discussion of specific appropriations are found in 

National Biscuit Co. v. State, 135 SW.2d 687,693 &x. 1940) tit k not necemary that an 

eppropriaticn dasi9nste a certain sum or even a. maximum sum to be specific); AGcins v. 

State Wiiway Denartment, 201 ,S.W. ‘226 0’~ Civ. App. - Austin 1918, no m 

.approptiation of all funds coming from a named source k specific); Attorney General 

Opinion V-l267;(l951) (appropriation of en uncertain amount of money in a special fund for 

a named purpcee k specific); Attorney General Opinion V-887 (1949) (appropriation of all 

lkenae fees received under a particular act k specific). 

The Governor also suggests that any improvement ‘of the ~eounty-ownad Sun Bowl 

with state funck ~would violate article iU, section 51. of the Texas ‘Cumtitution which 

provi& inter elia that the legklature ~hss no power to authorize a grant of public 

moneys toZiiiiZ& corporatim The details of any improvements are not before tu so 

we canno% say that all cane&able pr6jects wauld he permissible; however, the University 

of~TexasatRlPasokthelong-termle&eeofthestadiumanditmayba~y 

anticipated that it will receive substantial benefits from alterations and edditkms to the 

facility. Acts 1967, 57th Leg., ch. ‘13; at 23. If the University receives adequate benefits, 

it k not prevented from making apenditures which mayincidentoRy benefit ths County. 

Attorney General Gplnion H+3 0974). 

The next provision in question is: 

(47) The Texas Department of Human Rewnmxs kh=eby 

authorized and directed to construct a state office building, in 

cooperatfcn with the State Board of Control, cons&kg of NTR 

530,006 gross square feet (400,000 net square feet). No General 

Revenue, Children’s Assistance, 01‘ Medical Assiitance funds may 

be tned for this purpose. 

It k the intent of the Legislature that the building house the 

central administrative offices of both the Texas Department of 

P- 158 
Honorable WilIiam P. Clements, Jr. 

Honorable Bill Presnal - PagePour (NW-51) 

Honorable Homer, Ai Foerster 

Ruman Resources and the Texas Youth CounciL Further, it k the 

intent of the Lcgttlature that the buIldin. be co&meted on State 

land currently owned by the Texas Department of Mental Health 

end Mentd Reterdatkn, The Board of Mentsl Wealth and Mental 

Retardatico k hereby authorized end directed to traM!er to the 

State Boerd of Control record title to a certafn trhnguwhaped 

tract of land 39 acres, mare or lem, in ths north part of the City of 

Austin, tam&d on the west by West Guadalupe Street and,North 

Lamnr Boulevard, on the north by Slst Stree& on the eastby 

~Guadalupe Street and having the southern Up of the tract at the 

intersection of Guadalupe and West Guadalupe Streets, together 

with all records held .b it concerning this tract 

These two paragraphs do not constitute an “item” of wropriation under the test 

esteblished in Jemen. They da not set a&e or dedicate funds Instead, tMms 

directs and qtixthe tue of fumkappropriated elsewhere. See Jesren, 

606 (Supreme Court found fact that funds were appropriated elsewhere was % ncant in 

determining that the provkion was not an item .of appropriation and thus was not subject 

to veto). It prohibits the use of certain categories of funds for &nmtruction of this 

buiiding, and it ef!ecUvely directs the tue of funds spproprieted ittother portions of the 

Act. Accordingly, the Governor was without euthority to veto thisprovision. 

The Governor asks a series of questian? rsgardinS eemed federal f&s, which it .k 

entidpated will be the source of revenue for the construcUon~of the build@ listed in the 

rider. Berned federal funds are generated by reportingstate apendftures for servSces to 

pemons eligible for certain federal prcgrems gnd by olaimirg federal matching funds for 

those servkes. The earned federal funds are .arbject to appropriation by the legkigture 

and have in fact been appropriated. Se 

9 

ert. n, rider (6) et R-52, art. v, ‘0 19. The 

po$kn of the eppropri&ious act reflect the method of fh’mnchg the Department of 

Human Resources apprcpriation indicates that $60,650,000 has been appropriated to the 

department for the next two year% from earned federal funds Thk gmount reflects only 

the portion of the department’s itemized eppropriatiOn coming ,from earned federal funds. 

It does not include any funds for the construotion of the buildirgt however, ell earned 

federal funds are appropriated by the sixth rid& to the dspartmentk appropriation. Thus, 

ths amount of earned federal funds the department may spend is not limited to the 

660,650,OOO shown in the method of financfrg descriptlen. 

the ‘$60,650,000 appropriation may be spent for the 

Addit(onel funds Sn excess of 

constrgtion of a buildii within the 

limits set out, in the rider which the Governor sought to veto. 

The third provision in question k 

The State Board of Control shall establish a maximum and a 

minimum monthly charge for state employee parking of $16 and $6 

respectively for facilities within its jurkdictton. The Board k 

p. 159 
Honorable William P. Clements, Jr. 

Honorable Bill Presnal . - PageFive (Mu-61) 

Honorable Home? A. herder 

euthorized to charge varying rates within the above limitations 

baaed upon ths type and loeatiti of parking space made available 

+cepted by a date employ* 

Thk provision does not set asIde or dedicate funds for any putposer so it k not an 

item of appropriatiar and k not sub&at to veta 

Tha Poard of Control has ,ashed if it k prohibited from establkhing ‘a minimum 

par&in6 rate which k bw,u thm the six dollam per month set out In the ?ider. In essence 

theBoardkaMngUtheriderkvali& 

lt k well established in T& that 

[iJn edditian to appropriating money end ttipulating the amount, 

manner, and purpose of the various items of expenditure, a general 

eppropriatkn bhl may contain 

“p 

provision Q riders which detail, 

limit, or restrict the use of the umk or otherwke insure that the 

money is spent for the required nativity for which~ it k therein 

appropriated, if the provisions or riders Sn peeesar 

provided they do not conflict with general legkl8uan. 

Attbrn+ Genersl Opinion V-l234 (Nil). 

This ride neither eppropriates nor deteils, limits or testrjcts the use of f&s. It k 

instead a general directive to the State Board of Control to we certain affirmative 

8cU0n, and it may not validly be included in tha General~ropriations Act Accordi@y, 

the Board of Control las tha authority to set parking rateam@r the authority gmnted it 

hy sectian 30 of article 678t, V.T.C.S., and it k not limited to the minimum and 

;r~itguxml)mtes et out in the eppropriations act. See also 37-e By 1673, 68th Leg., 

. . 

The next two provkions of the Act rdse identkel issues They ares 

Funds epproprieted to The University of Texas et &II Antonio for 

the fiscal yrxy ending A- 3l,l979 are hereby reappropriated for 

the bknnium ending August 3Ll98L 

. . . . 

See. 15. Any unexpended balances as of August Sl, 198.0, not 

otherwke restricted and ,remaining in the various item&z of 

appropriatiau to the Youth Council and tk institutions under its 

jurkdiction are apptiopriated for’ the fiscal year beginning 

p. 160 
Honorable William P. Clemenls, Jr. 

Honorable Bill Presnal - PageSIx (MW-51) 

Honorable Homer A. Foerster 

September 1,1980, for construction projects and major repairs. The 

funds will be restricted to ths followingr 

YOUTH COUNCI& RUILDING AND REPAIR PROORAM 

L Repair sewer lift Station at West Texas ChIldrenb Home 

NTR, $33,000. 

2. Repair cr repkcement of institution&l streets, perhing ktS, 

curbs and gutters, tjTE 6225,000. 

These two provisions appropriate funds remaining unspent from the prior biennhrm’r 

appropriation to the two agencies. It has been suggested that. the kngusge merely directs 

ths ‘we of funds appropriated elsewhere, in this case in the prior epproprintions sect The 

19784979 appropriations, however, expire on Atqust Sl, 1979. Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch 

872, et 2699; z Tex. Const. art. Vlll, S 6. Ths 1979-1980 epprupriationa art rot available 

until 8eptegbe.r l, 1979. The two provisions set aside or dedicate funds for a specific use. 

AamdingIy, they are items of appropriation and are subject to veto by the Covernor. 

The next provision you have questioned Is in the portion of the Act relating to the 

Departmenl of Highways and Public Transportatiot~ R providesr 

in order to insure the maintensnee, preservation and cuutructkn 

of a system of highways roadways ed streets within the stete, 

there shall be $ progrem dfsigmd to eccomplish improvements in 

traffic flow tid design in cooperation with the polttical subdMskm of the state eind in .conmmce and furtherance of federal 

wway polky to repante cco@sted, hasimbw end dangerow 

gmde intemeeticns of highways and ‘railways with the ultimate 

.objective of eccompllshing a sepemUan of ‘the two gro4md 

transportation 

F 

ems ‘and there is. hereby ~appropckted Pive 

MUlion Dollars $5,000,000) per year from the General Revenue 

Fund to accomplish theqe objectives Provided further that general 

revenues of the state appropriated for the fmpkmentation of this 

ridershankmimbursedtathcStatcRraangrhould.f~ralf~ 

,beeome evaikhle for these pue The Sate Dep&ment of 

Highways and Public Trensportation shall have’ such power and 

authority .to eccompIish said objective ss necemary and shah 

.,administer funds from the general revenue of the state as 

appropriated herein, together with funds provided from .fe&ml 

sources; furthr, the Department shall set up administrative rules, 

regulations, orders and stemlards to administer the outlay of such 

funds, and shall determine a priority for orderly implementntion of 

the separations to be undertaken. 

The legislature spproprhted a large lump sum for contract construction. See item 

3(d), p 111-85. That sum includes SS million per year from non-general revenue runds for 

P. -161 
Honorable Wiliiam P. Ciements, Jr. 

Honcmble Sill Presnal - Page Seven (M+511 

Honcmble Homer A. Poerster 

grade separations. The paragraph whkh was vetoed and is reproduced above provides an 

additional $5 million per yeer fcr this purpose fmm the general revenue fm& It Indicates 

that a specific amaunt is apprcpriated for 4 qxaifk purpom The language does not refer 

ta funds appropriated aisewhere in the Act Accordingly, the sentence apprcpriating $5 

milk0 per year from the general revenue fund was aubkct to veto. The approprktion 

from nongeneral revenue funds is, of comae, not affacted by the veto. 

The final veto in question involved college building funds Tha language whkh the 

Governor sought to veto providesr 

sech CO&EQE EUILDMQ FUNDS. ’ There also are 

appropriated far use the allocations from the building funds created 

by Article VU, Sections l7 and 18, of the State Constitution, to the 

respective institutis and for the Ourposes specified therein. 

All of the funds~ allocated by article VII, section 18 are appropriated elsewhere in the 

Act, see General Appropriations Act, pp. III-28 -El-29, and thus are not subject to veto. 

Tim final qucstian,‘then, is whether the article VII, section 17 funds are subject to 

veto. While the language of artkle lV, section s’of ‘the appropriaticns act would typically 

be subject to veto, the funds may be appropriated by the constitution itself. If so, any 

further appropriation would ba unnecemary and the funds would be beyond the veto 

authsrity. 

Artkle VU, ae@on 17 of the Texas Constitution imposes an ad valorem tax and 

p~tides a serka of formulae by whkh the funds are to&be allocated’among several state 

m@po+ed colleges and universities. The governing ,bo&ds of : the instituticns are 

Urthorized to pletQe funds allotted to each institutkn to secure bonds and notea. Article 

w,sectkn17goesaltoprovidez 

The State Comptroller of Publia Accounk shall draw ail 

necc~andpcparwMantruponthcstatcTreasurpkordat0 

carryoutthepurposcolthbAmcndmcnt,urdthtStateReMurer 

rhanpayrruranBn,igU6dOUfOrtharpcc.~fundhercbycrcated 

for aaid putpose. Ttds Amendment ahall be aelf-enactin& ,. . . . 

An earlier version of this amendment was considered by the Attorney General in 

Attorney General Opinion V-798 U949). The Attorney General said: 

There is, neceaserily involved in your request; though not 

definitely pzsentss& the question of whether or not these funds are 

subject to legislative appropriatiar as a prerequisite to expenditure 

by the c+ge.s. We *em it appropriate to answer that question 

now. The answer k in the negative. This Constitutional 

p. 162 
Honorable William P. Gleme&, Jr. 

Honorable Bill Resnal - PageEight ~~-31) 

Honorable Homer A. Poerster 

Amendment, by its exprem terms, is self-enacting in aii of its 

details. It specifically lcvic~ the tax, designates the use to nMah 

thefundcrecrtedbythetaxic*gshallbsapglicdbytheBoardof 

Regents, and dlmcts the Comptrolier to issue and the State 

Tmasumr ta pay warrants dnwn ~upon this special fund thus 

created. An appropriaticn in a ccnstitutional sense may be by 

legishtive act cr constitutiaul declaration. This ir of the latter 

chss. The effect of thi apliait dimctions found in this 

Gonstituticnal Amendment, now a pert of ths organic law of this 

State, levying the tsx, creatiq a special fund from such levy, 

qmcifying the purposes for wtich it may be spent, and directing the 

manner of its dtsbumement, &early remove this special fund from 

the limitatiaw of Article WI, Section 6 of the Constitution of tMs 

State, which providew 940 money shall be drawn from the treasury 

but in pursuance of specific appropriation made by larv; nor shall 

any appropriation of money be made for a longer term than two 

ytars’. . . 

Since these funds are appropriated by the constitution they ere not subject to veto. 

SUMMARY 

The Govemor validly vetoad prcyisions of ‘the General 

Approprhticns Act reapproprhtiq unended ,balances from the 

ghcedhg ‘biennium to the ,Tera+ Youth Council and ,to the 

University of Texas at San Antonio. He also had authority to veto 

an appywhticn to the Department. of Xighwqs and Public 

Tranqodticn ta pay for grade separations. 

Four attempted vetoes were outside the scope of the Gova&(s 

authority and are void. These includaa veto of provisions ralating 

to the Sun Bowl stadium, parking fees charged by ,the Bosrd of 

Control, authaizatim, of aPanditures far a building to be 

-ted by the Department cf Human Bcsoums 

building funds 

andcollege 

A rider directing the Board of control to impose certain parking 

fees ~ls invalid since it is an attempt to enact general legislation in 

the approprjations act 

>~pbfPUK~ 

!dARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

P. i63 
Honorable William P.Clements,Jr. 

Honorable Bill ptesnal - PageNine (MW-51) 

Honorable Homa A. poerster 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assiitant Attorney General 

Prepared by C. Robert Heath 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

David B. Brooks 

Susan Garrison 

Paul Gavia 

Rick Gilptn 

Terry Goodman 

WiIIiam G Reid 

David H. Young 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 164