DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tfp I?lttornep General 

Bbtate of fhxae 

May 11.1992 

Mr. Dan Roberts 

chairman 

Texas Board on Aging 

P. 0. Box 12786 

Austin Texas 78711 

Opinion No. DM-116 

Re: Validity of a rider to the current 

appropriation to the Texas Department on 

Aging which requires the department, under 

certain circumstances, to use the service 

standards, systems, billing, audit procedures, and 

provider bases used by the Department of 

Human Services (RQ- 288) 

Dear Mr. Roberts: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the validity of a rider to the 

current appropriation to the Texas Department on Aging (hereafter “TDoA”). That 

provision, numbered “Rider 9,” states as follows: 

Where services under Title III [of the Older Americans Act] and 

Options for Independent Living are substantially equivalent to 

those provided by the Texas Department of Human Services 

Community Care programs, the [TDoA] shall use the service 

standards, systems, billing and audit procedures, and provider 

bases used by the Department of Human Services to eliminate 

unnecessary duplication. 

General Appropriations Act, Acts 1991, 72d Leg, ch. 19, art. II, 0 1, at 686; see 

Hum. Res. Code $9 101.041- 101.049 (Options for Independent Living). 

You first ask whether TDoA’s compliance with this rider would violate the 

federal Older Americans Act and the regulations applicable thereto. See 42 USC. 

09 30013057n Determination of this matter is ultimately a federal question, and 

no pronouncement by this office would be conclusive. It is not, in any event, 

necessary to reach this issue, since we conclude that rider 9 is unconstitutional under 

Texas law. 

p. 593 
Mr. Dan Roberts - Page 2 (DM-116) 

Article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution prohibits the enactment of 

general legislation in a general appropriations bii. See Moore v. Sheppard, 192 

S.W.2d 559,561 (Tex. 1946); Attorney General Opinions MW-51 (1979); V-1254, 

V-1253 (1951). A rider to a general appropriations bili may do no more than 

“detail, limit, or restrict the use of the [appropriated] funds or otherwise insure that 

the money is spent for the required activity for which it is therein appropriated.” 

Attorney General Opinion V-1254 at 17 (citing summary). A rider is invalid if it 

attempts to “confer an affirmative duty” on a state agency. Attorney General 

Opinion JM-167 (1984). 

In Attorney General Opinion MW-585 (1982). this office considered a rider 

to the appropriation to the State Board of Barber Examiners. That rider stated: 

It is the intent of the @]egislature that an interagency 

contract shall be executed between the State Board of Barber 

Examiners and the Texas Cosmetology Commission to reduce 

duplication of activities in inspections, enforcement and 

examinatioIl 

Attorney General Opinion MW-585 (citing General Appropriations Act, Acts 1981, 

67th Leg., ch. 875, art. I, at 3376). The opinion held that this rider was invalid, since 

it failed to “appropriate any funds nor does it detail, limit or restrict the use of funds 

appropriated elsewhere.” Id at 2. On the contrary, the opinion found that the rider 

was “a general directive to the State Board of Barber Examiners and the Texas 

Cosmetology Commission to take specific affirmative action.” Id. The opinion 

concluded that the rider “constitutes general legislation”; that it was therefore 

“violative of article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution”; and that as a result, it 

was “void and of no effect.” Id. at 2-3. 

In our opinion, the rider about which you inquire is similar in .all particulars 

to that held invalid in Attorney General Opinion IvIW-585. It requires TDoA to 

take specific affirmative actions: “use the service standards, systems, billing and 

audit procedures, and provider bases used by the Department of Human Services.” 

Acts 1991,72d Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 19, art. II, Q 1, at 686. It does so for the identical 

reason specified in the rider considered in Attorney General Opinion h4W-585: to 

eliminate duplication. As laudable as this goal may be, its implementation is not a 

proper subject for an appropriations act rider. We are compelled to conclude that 

rider 9 constitutes general legislation; that, as such, it is violative of article III, 

p. 594 
Mr. Dan Roberts - Page 3 (DM-116) 

section 35 of the Texas Constitution; and that, accordingly, it is void and of no 

effect. 

SUMMARY 

A rider to the appropriation to the Texas Department of 

Aging which ~re-quires that agency to zlse the service standards, 

systems, billing and audit procedures, and provider bases used 

by the Department of Human Se&es” constitu@s general 

legislation in contravention of article ItI, section 35 of the Texas 

Constitutions It is therefore void and of no effect. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL FRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

h4ARYKEUF.R 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

RENEAHIcKs 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADEIJ3NE B. JOHNSON 

c!hdr, opinion committee 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 595