## E NEY GENERAL OF YITE~~~s

Hon. Robert S. Calvert Comptroller of Public Accounts State Capitol Building Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. M- 408
Re: Insurance for Legislators
Dear Mr. Calvert: Reference ia made to your letter inwhich you request an opinion from this office as to the captioned matter. We quote from your letter, in part, as follows:

“Your official opinion is requested as to whether the Comptroller is authorized to pay insurance premiums for members ofthe Legislature. An account for such payment has been received by this office.

“Section 19 (sic) (Section 24) of Article IIIof the Constitution of Texas provides inpart as follows:
‘Members ofthe Legislature shall receive from the proper funds an annual salary not to exceed $4,800. per year. . .A per diem not to exceed $12.00 per day for the first 120 days only ofeach regular session of the Legislature. ’ (Emphasis added. )

“In addition.
. . Section 6ofArticle XVI ofthe Constitution of Texas forbids any appropriation for private or individual purposes. “Particularly inview ofthe Constitutional provisions quoted above relating to the compensation of members ofthe Legislature, is an account calling for the expenditure offunds, in excess ofthe limitation set outin the Constitution, for the purchase ofthe below listed types 

## -2023-I&n. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (M-408)
ofinsurance avalid claim against funds in the State Treasury which the Comptroller is authorized to pay?

“1. Premiums for sickness and accident insurance for members ofthe Legislature.

“2. Premiuma for sickness and accident insurance for members, which includes benefits for dependents.

“3. Premiums for life insurance for members.

“4. Premiums for life insurance for members which includes coverage of dependents. ” Itappears that the legal questions with which you are concerned involve whether the payment ofthe insurance premiums would (1)constitute additional “salary”, “per diem” or “mileage” in violation ofthe limitation on such items in Article III, Section 24, Constitution of Texas, or (2) would constitute an appropriation for private or individual purposes inviolation ofArticle III, Section 51, and Article XVI, Section 6, Constitution of Texas. With this understanding, we confine our considerations to such questions. There are at least four Texas Constitutional prohibitions considered pertinent in respect to such questions, to-wit: 1. Those contained inArticle III, Section 51, to the effect that:

“The Legislature shall have no power to make any grant or authorize the making ofany grant ofpublic moneys to any individual, association ofindividuals, municipal or other corporations whatsoever.
. , “; 

## -2024-Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (M- 408)
2. Those contained in Article VIII, Section 3. to the effect that:

“Taxes shall be levied and collected by general laws and for public purposes only.“; and, 3. Those contained in Article XVI, Section 6, to the effect that:

“(a) No appropriation for private or individual purposes shall be made unless authorized by this constitution. ” 4. Those contained in Article III, Section 24, Constitution of Texas, which reads:

“Sec. 24. Members ofthe Legislature shall receive from the Public Treasury an annual salary ofnot exceeding Four Thousand, Eight Hundred Dollars ($4,800) per year and a per diem ofnotexceeding Twelve Dollars ($12) per day for the first one hundred and twenty (120) days only of each Regular Session and for thirty (30) days ofeach Special Session ofthe Legislature. No Regular Session shall be oflonger duration than one hundred and forty (140) days.

“In addition to the per diem the Members ofeach House shall be entitled to mileage in going to and returning from the seat of government, which mileage shall not exceed Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2. 50) for every twenty-five (25) miles, the distance to be computed by the nearest and most direct route oftravel, from atable ofdistances prepared by the Comptroller to each county seat now or hereafter to be established; no Member to be entitled.to mileage for any extra Session that may be called within one (1)day after the adjournment ofthe Regular or called Session.” Article 3.50 ofthe Texas Insurance Code provides the statutory authorization for group life insurance coverage and Article 3. 51of the Texas Insurance Code provides the statutory authorization for group health, accident, hospitalization, etc., insurance. -2025-Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 4, (M-408)
This opinion is further written on the assumption that your inquiry is directed to the payment by the State ofpremiums on such group life, health, accident, hospital, etc., insurance policies covering members ofthe Legislature and their dependent8 and as to how the same may be authorized or prohibited in light ofthe constitutional and statutory provisions hereinbefore quoted or referred to; and it is so limited. Inholding that the city’s firemen and policemen’s pension plan was not vioIative of Constitutional Article I, Section 16; Article III, Sections 44, 51-53; Article VIII, Section 3; and Article XVI, Section 6. prohibiting application ofpublic funds to private purpose8 or gratuitous grants of such funds to individuals, the Supreme Court of Texas, in 1938, in the
case of Byrd V. City of Dallas, et al, 118Tex, 28. 6S.W. 2d 738, held that the pension concerned was not a gratuity but was for a public purpose and abenefit conferred in consideration of services rendered. The Court stated:

“It is academic to say the Legislature has power to pass any law which its wisdom suggeststhat is not forbidden by some provision8 ofthe Constitution (federal or state). Ifthe pension provided for inthis Act is a gratuity or adonation to the beneficiary, it is clearly forbidden by the fundamental law. On the other hand, if it is a part ofthe compensation of such employee for service8 rendered to the city, or ifit be for a public purpose, then clearly it is avalid exercise ofthe legislative power.” The Byrd case was quoted by this office in Attorney General Opinion WW-731, upholding the constitutionality ofArticle 237211-z Vernon’s civil. . ..

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 5 (M- 408) Statutes, which authorized the counties to pay all or a part ofthe hospitalization insurance ofcounty official8 and employees. InAttorney General Opinion No. M-138, in authorizing the comptroller to pay certain group insurance premiums for his employees, this office stated as follows:

“It has been heretofore held by this office that a state agency may contribute state funds inpayment ofthe premiums of group insurance covering its employees under the provisions ofgubsection (a) ofSection 1of Article 3.51, ofthe Insurance Code as amended by Senate Bill 294, Acts ofthe 60th Legislature (Attorney General;8 Opinion No. M-125). Such is a Public governmental purpose benefitting the State. Opinion by the Justices, 30 So. 2d 14 (Ala. Sup. 1947); Bowers v. City of Albuquerque, 27 N. M. 291, 200 P. 421 (1921); Thompson v. City of Memphis, 147 Term. 658, 251S.W. 46 (1923); People V. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 42 Cal. App. 2d 490, 108 PZd 923 (1941). “We are in agreement with the reasoning ofthe Supreme Court of Mississippi in Mayor and Aldermen of City of Vicksburg v. Crinchlow, 196 Miss. 259, 16So. 2d 749 (1944), wherein the statute concerning benefits to eovernmental employees was upheld as not being gratiuties and as not extra compensation, but being prospective it serves a beneficient and useful governmental function in its propensity for stimulating and regarding faithfu1 public services. ” The question i.1,then presented as to whether payment of such premiums would constitute a public purpose. Ifany grounds exist to support 8 finding that an act was for a’public Purpose”, -2027-Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 

## 6(bf- 

## 408)
then such act must be upheld. Onthe other hand, ifno logic or
reason can show such act to benefit the public, then such finding must be held not to be supported by any valid evidence. hrview ofthe foregoing, we are ofthe opinion that there exists
no constitutional inhibition as to the use of state funds and their application to group sickness and accident policy premium payments for legislators themselves. Such an expenditure se rves abeneficient and useful public or governmental function in helping to assure maximum state service and is directly related to the health and well being of state servants in the performance oftheir duties. This would not constitute an **expenditure** ofpublic funds for private or individual purposes. The primary purpose or benefit accrues to the state, and the benefit to the individual is deemed as incidental and as not rendering the expenditure invalid or unconstitutional. We do not interpret such abenefit as additional “salary”. “per diem” or I’mileage”, as those terms are used in Article III, Section 24 ofthe Constitution of Texas. This constitutional provision deal8 only with those specific emoluments and operates as alimitation merely as to them. “galary” has been distinguished from “emOlument”, 

## -202sHon. Robert S. Calvert, page ,7(M-408)
the latter term being deemed more comprehensive. 67 CJS 326, Officers, Sec. 89. Itis likewise shown that “compensation” includes salary but may not in all cases mean the same thing, depending upon the context inwhich it is used. Itis our opinion that the meaning of “salary” as used inthe constitution must be given its plain and ordinary literal meaning, that is, salary compensation, and does not necessarily include every benefit or perquisite arising from the possession ofthe office. The Constitution does not provide that no other emolument, perquisite, or benefit may be enjoyed by members of the legislature. Cf:,.Terrell v. King, 118Tex. 237, 241, 14S.W. 2d 786, 791 (1929); State v. Aranson , 314 P 2d 849, 853 (Mont. Sup. 1957t Spearman v. Williams, 415 P2d 597 (Okla. Sup. 1966). Although we have answered your first question inthe affirmative, we must answer question No. 2in the negative. Payment ofpremium8 for sickness and accident insurance for dependents oflegislators would not constitute an expenditure for apublic purpose butwould be an appropriation for private or individual purposes , and inviolation ofArticle III, Section 51, and Article XVI, Section 6, Constitution of **Texas.** We must likewise answer questions 3and 4inthe negative. Subsection (a) of Section 1, Article 3. 51ofthe Insurance Code provides for such payments for members andtheir dependents but only as to hospital, surgical and/or medical expense insurance. Subsection (3) -2029-

,,,,Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 8 (M-408)

Section IofArticle 3.50 contains no language which would authorize coverage for dependents of either state employees or other state personnel or officials insofar as life insurance is concerned. The object oflife insurance is to “secure to the family ofa person who is dependent ona salary or the income which ceases with h&slife,, asupport onthe death ofthe insured. “44 CJS 480, Insurance, Sec. 18.” Thus, the pecuniary benefits to the benificiary flowing .therefrom are mainly for aprivate or individual purpose, unrelated to furthering the performance ofthe state legislator onthejob. Payments for life insurance would, in
our opinion, be unconstitutional, being inviolation ofArticle III, Section 51, and Article XVI, Section 6, Constitution of Texas, since not authorized by the Constitution as required thereby.’
SUMMARY

There is no constitutional prohibition against the use of state funds to make premium payments on group health and accident insurance policies for members ofthe legislature.



## -2030-Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 9 (M-408)
There is a constitutional prohibition against the use of state funds for payments ofpremiums on group life policies for legislators and the dependents of state legislators and for group health and accident policies covering the dependents of legislators.

eneral of Texas Prepared by Roger Tyler Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman George Kelton, Co-Chairman Alfred Walker Neil Williams James S. Swearingen John H. Banks W. V. Geppert Staff Legal Assistant Hawthorne Phillips Executive Assistant



### -2031-