Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )

TISEATORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
ATJNTXN. Tssxws
78711
June 5, 1975
The Honorable Bob Bullock Opinion No. H- 622
Comptroller of Public Accounts
State Finance Building Re: Effect on the Comptroller’s
Austin, Texas certification of the general
appropriations bill of omission
Dear Mr. Bullock: of a page of the bill.
You have asked our opinion on tive questions involving the Comptroller’s
ability to certify Senate Bill 52, the General Appropriations Bill enacted
by the 64th Legislature. The questions arise from a clerical error which
occurred before the bill was enrolled and resulted in the omissiodof a page.
The omitted page appears at page III-82 of the conference dommittee report
on Senate Bill No. 52.
As we understand the facts, page III-82 was mistakenly omitted from one
copy of the conference committee report while the report was being prepared.
Three copies of the report were filed in the House of Representatives and
three copies were filed in the Senate. Page III-82 was contained in all three
copies of the report filed in the House and in two of the three reports filed
in the Senate. Both houses adopted the report. Unfortunately, the copy
used by the enrolling room in preparing the enrolled version of the bill was
the one copy which did not contain page 111-82. Shortly before the adjourn-
ment sine
-- die of the Legislature, the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker
signed the enrolled copy in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives respectively. The error was discovered after tbe bill was
delivered to the Comptroller. For easy reference a copy of the missing page
as it appeared in five of the six copies of the conference committee report
is attached as an appendix to this opinion. We believe this situation constitutes
an extraordinary case and our opinion is limited to these facts.
p. 2755
The Honorable Bob Bullock. page 2 (H-622)
Article 3, section 49a of the Texas Constitution outlines the Comptroller’s
duty to certify whether sufficient funds exist to cover the amount of an
appropriation bill. That section provides in part:
From and after January 1, 1945, save in the case
of emergency and imperative public necessity and
with a four-fifths vote of the total membership of
each House, no appropriation in excess of tbe cash
and anticipated revenue of the funds from which such
appropriation is to be made shall be valid. From
and after January 1. 1945, no bill containing an
appropriation shall be considered aa passed or be
sent to the Governor for consideration until and
unless the Comptroller of Public Accounts endoreea
his certificate thereon showing that the amount appro-
priated ia within the amount estimated to be available
in the affected funds. When the Comptroller finds an
appropriation bill exceeds the estimated revenue he
shall endorse such finding thereon and return to the
House in which same originated. Such information
shall be immediately made known to both the House
of Representatives and the Senate and the necessary
steps shall be taken to bring such appropriation to
within the revenue, either by providing additional
revenue or reducing the appropriation.
(Emphasis added)
Your first question is:
(1) Does the obvious omission of Page 82, Article III
prevent the bill from being certified to the Governor
by [the Comptroller]?
The Comptroller’s constitutional duty is to indicate whether “the amount
appropriated is within the amount estimated to be available in the affected
funds. ” Tbua, if the Comptroller is able to make this determination on the
basis of the information in the bill as it was presented to him, then he has
sufficient information to make the certification decision. While we are aware
of the contents of the missing page we believe your first two questions do not
require reference to that page, since in our view all information relevant to the
certification process is contained on other pages.
p. 2756
. ,
The Honorable Bob Bullock, Rage 3 (H-622)
At pages III-172 and III-175. of the enrolled bill, the recapitulation
of the total appropriationa to the Highway Department is shown as
$790,519,303 and $816,825,138 for fiscal yeara 1976 and 1977, respectively.
The recapitulation also shows that the method of financing thia total appro-
priation is to be accomplished by utilizing $650,000 and $250.000 of general
revenue funds for the 1976 and 1977 tiscal years, respectively, and utilizing
$789.869.303 and $816,575,138 “from other funds” for the respective
fiscal years. On page III-81, the State Highway Fund “other than that money
appropriated elsewhere in this Act from the State Highway Fund” is appro-
priated for State Highway Department purposes. The State Highway Fund
then would be one of the other funds referred to in the recapitulation to be
utilized in financing the Highway Department. On page III-83 of the
enrolled bill. the Farm-to-Market Road Fund is appropriated to the State
Highway Department. The amount to be allocated to the Farm-to-Market
Road Fund each year is set by statute at $15,000,000. V. T. C. S.,
art. 7083a. § 2(4-b).
As the bill presented to the Comptroller contains (1) the total amount
of the Highway Department Appropriation, (2) the amount of that appropriation
which is to come from the general revenue fund, (3) the amount which is to
come from other funds, (4) the other funds which are to be used, and (5) suf-
ficient information by which the amount to come from each of the other
funds can be ascertained, we believe the Comptroller has adequate data
to fulfill his constitutional obligation of determining whether “the amount
appropriated is within the amount estimated to be available in the affected
funds. ‘I
Your second question is:
. . . [S]hould this office take into account the approxi-
mately $800 million dollars per year that is not included
in the bill in determining whether or not the numerous
other appropriation items can be certified?
Although reference is made to the approximately 800 million dollars
per year which is on the omitted page, it should be noted that that figure
represents a final total of several smaller figures almoat all of which appear
on earlier pages. The final totals appear elsewhere in the bill as well, and
p. 2757
’ . 1
The Honorable Bob Bullock, page 4 (H-622)
thus you should consider them when deciding whether sufficient revenues are
anticipated to permit you to certify the bill. The only appropriations figures
which do not appear in complete detail are limited to approximately 5.6 million
dollars for the two year period and relate to two programs.
Your third and fourth questions are:
(3) . . . [Clan the Comptroller issue warrants
after September 1, 1975 to the Highway Department
even though there is no page 82 of Article III in the
bill that is certified by this office?
(4) . . . [Wjhat document does the Comptroller
use to determine the exact appropriations of the Texas
Highway Department? . . .
As we have indicated the total amount appropriated to Ihe Highway
Department can be easily ascertained without making reference to the missing
page. However, the specific purpose for which approximately 5.6 million
dollars is appropriated over the biennium is not clear in the bill presented to
you. Since the funds clearly are appropriated to the Highway Department,
and there is pre-existing statutory authority for the Department to expend
these funds, we believe that if and when the bill is effective, warrants may
be issued and may be spent in fulfilling those statutory responsibilities even
though the exact use of certain portions of the funds is not specifically
indicated in the bill delivered to you. See, Attorney General Letter Opinion
MS-99 (1953); cf. , Atkins v. State Highway Department, 201 S.W. 226 (Tex.
Civ. App. --Austin 1918. no writ); Attorney General Opinion V-1255 (1951).
However, in determining the specific purposes for which the 5.6 million
dollars can be spent, the Highway Department and the Comptroller should
be guided by the intent of the Legislature and to determine that intent in this
case should use the conference committee report which was the document on
which the Legislature voted and which clearly contains the missing page.
Letter Advisory No. 72 (1973); Attorney General Opinions C-131 (1963);
V-1312 (1951); V-1234 (1951).
Because of our answers to your first four questions it is unnecessary
to consider your fifth question.
p. 2758
* ’
The Honorable Bob Bullock, page 5 (H-622)
SUMMARY
There is sufficient information in the enrolled copy
of Senate Bill No. 52, the General Appropriations Bill
for fiscal years 1976 and 1977, for the Comptroller to
determine whether to certify the bill. In the issuance
of warrants and the expenditure of funds appropriated
to the Highway Department, the Comptroller and the
Department should be guided by the intent of the Legir-
lature.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
DAVID hi. KENDALL, First Assiatant
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 2759
APPENDIX
Attorney General Opinion H-622
S.B. No. 52
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
jContinued1
7. Travel and Information Service,
estimated to be 2.498.368 2.724,271
8. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway:
a. For administration of Senate
Bill No. 472, Acts of the Sixty-
fourth Legislature, Regular
Session, 1975 100,000 U. B.
b. For purchase of right-of-way, if
necessary, in accordance with the
provisions of Senate Bill No.
472. Acts of the Sixty-fourth
Legislature, Regular Session,
1975 300.000 U.B.
GRAND TOTAL, HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
(All funds, Including Sums
Certain and Estimated) $790.519,303 $816.825.138
Method of Financing:
State Highway Fund, estimated $774,869,303 $801.575.138
Farm-to-Market Road Fund 15,ooo.ooo 15.000,000
General Revenue Fund 650.000 250.000
& U.B.
Total, Method of Financing,
estimated $790.519,303 $816,825,138
p. 2760
APPENDIX (continued)
Attorney General Opinion H-622
Schedule of Exempt Positions
1976 1977
Commissioners, 3 $ 17,700 $ 18,900
State Highway Engineer 40,500 42,300
Assistant State Highway Engineer, 2 31,400 33,200
Bridge Engineer 27,900 29,700
Chief Engineer, Highway Design 27,900 29,700
Chief Engineer, Maintenance and
Gpe ration 27,900 29,700
District Engineers, 4 27,900 29,700
Engineer--Manager 27,900 29.700
District Engineers. 21 27,400 29,200
Construction Engineer 27.400 29,200
Engineer VI, 3 26,200 28,000
Engineer, Secondary Roads 27,400 29,200
Right-of-Way Engineer 27,400 29,200
Materials and Tests Engineer 27,400 29,200
Engineer-Director, Automation 27,400 29,200
Engineer-Director, Planning
and Research 27.400 29,200
Director, Motor Vehicle 26.800 28,600
Director, Finance 26,800 28,600
Director, Equipment and Procurement 26,800 28,600
Personnel and Wage Administrator 26,800 28,600
Director, Travel and Information 26.800 28,600
Director, Insurance 26,800 28.600
Accounts Examiner III 16,140 17.244
III - 82 05/30/75 Cl
p. 2761