Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1953 )

OF EXAS July 31, 1953 Hon. C. H. Cavness Opinion No. S-80 State Auditor Capitol Station Re: Legality of the Railroad Com- Austin, Texas mission’s contracting for the compilation of machine records data from an appropriationfor the acquisition of machine ac- Dear Mr, Cavness; counting equipment. In your letter requesting an opinion of this office, you have re- ferred to Items 132 and 133 of the appropriation for the Railroad Com- missionof Texas for the 1953-55 biennium (Ch. 81,Acts 53rd Leg., 1953. p. 127, at p* 286). which read as follows: “For the Years Ending August 3 1, August 3 1. 1954 1955 $7 ‘132. There is herebyappropriatedout of the Oil and Gas Enforcement Fund the amounts of. D a D e o D e D e D o p 140.000 100,000 for the acquisition by rental or pur- chase of machine accounting and re- pr educing equipment and the supplies, salaries and contingent expense re- quired for the installation and opera- ting thereof; and any unexpended bal- ance ,at the close of the fiscal year ending August 31st, 1954, is hereby reappropriated for the fiscal year be - ginning September 1st. 1954; provided, however, that the machine and equip- ment installations and operating tech- niques shallbe made subject to the ap- proval of the Legislative Audit Com- mittee D ‘133. For the same purposes and subject to the same restrictions as set out in item No. 132 above, there is alsoappropriated from revenues derived by the Oil and Gas Divisionfrom the sale of reproduced ma- terial the amounts of o a e D D a e mm~ 10,000 30,000R Hon. C. H. Cavness. page 2 (S-88) You have asked the following question: “Instead of making the machine and equipment installations, or perhaps part of such installations, contemplated in the above Items No. 132 and 133, could the Railroad Commission pay, out of the appropriations provided therein, a fee or fees under a contract which might be entered into with a commercial concern which would prepare certain of the oiland gas records, reports, and other data re- quired ?” Money appropriated by the Legislature cannot be spent for any purpose other than that for which it is appropriated. And where the Legis- lature has prescribed the method of expenditure, that method must be fol- lowed. It is true tbatthe over-all purpose of the appropriations in Items 132 and 133 is toallow the compilation of certain records and reports. and if the Legislature had merely provided a sum of moneyfor this general pur- pose the Railroad Commission would have bad a discretion in selecting the method by which this purpose was to be accomplished. But here the Legis- lature has specified the method of expenditure by designating the specific purposes for which the appropriations are to be spent: it is tobe byacquisi- tion of equipment and supplies. and by payment of salaries and contingent expense required for the installation and operation thereof. It is evident that the Legislature intended for the work to be done on equipmentand by em- ployees under the direct control of the Railroad Commission. A contract for the performance of these services through anindependent contractor would not be in compliance with these requirements. Therefore, it is our opinion thatnopart of these appropriations may be used for paying fees toan independent contractor under a contract for the performance of any of these services. SUMMARY Anappropriation toa State departmentfor the acquisition of machine accounting and reprodncingequipmentand the expenses for installationand operatingthereof maynotbe used to payan independ- ent contractor for the preparation of the records, reports. and other data for which the equipment was intended to be used. APPROVED: Yours very truly, David B. Irons JOHN BEN SHEPPERD Administrative Assistant Attorney General C. K. Richards Reviewer Robert S. Trotti First Assistant Assistant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General