Could the State Commission for the Blind contract with public or private organizations to provide rehabilitation training for older blind adults?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-167: Blind Rehabilitation Contracts
Plain-English summary
JM-167 concluded that the State Commission for the Blind could use the designated appropriation to contract with public or private agencies for rehabilitation services to blind adults.
"Under the authority granted by section 91.052(b)(1) of the Human Resources Code, the commission, in its discretion, may use funds appropriated in article II, section 5.c. of the current general appropriations act to contract with public or private agencies to provide rehabilitation services to blind adults."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
The contract was discretionary. The appropriations rider was invalid because it attempted to require affirmative action that general law merely permitted.
"Because the general appropriation rider in question attempts to make mandatory that which general law makes permissive or discretionary, we conclude that the rider is invalid general legislation contained in a general appropriation act in violation of article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, later AG opinions, or agency reorganizations may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
What money did the appropriation provide?
The act included $272,146 for older-blind contract training in each year of the biennium ending in 1984 and 1985.
"The General Appropriations Act of the Sixty-eighth Legislature includes the sum of $272,146 for older blind contract training in the appropriation to the State Commission for the Blind for each of the fiscal years ending August 31, 1984 and August 31, 1985."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
What did the rider direct?
It stated legislative intent that the money be spent on a contract with the Texas Lions League or a similar organization at the Kerrville camp or a similar facility outside Austin.
"It is the intent of the Legislature that out of funds appropriated above in item 5.c. Older Blind Contract Training an amount not to exceed $272,146 each fiscal year shall be expended for entering into a contract with the Texas Lions League or a similar organization to provide rehabilitative services to blind adults at the Texas Lions Camp for Crippled Children at Kerrville or at a similar facility located outside Austin."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
Why was another provider needed?
The Texas Lions League was discontinuing its Kerrville training program for older blind adults.
"The Texas Lions League for Crippled Children is discontinuing its training program for older blind at Kerrville, Texas, on May 31, 1984."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
What is the constitutional limit on an appropriations rider?
A rider may detail, limit, or restrict use of appropriated funds if it does not conflict with general legislation.
"It is well established that a rider to a general appropriation act is valid if its only effect is to 'detail, limit or restrict the use of funds therein appropriated' and if it does not conflict with general legislation."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
It cannot make mandatory what general law leaves permissive or discretionary.
"Hence, the legislature cannot make mandatory by a general appropriation rider that which general law makes permissive or discretionary."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
What did general law authorize?
Section 91.052 directed the commission to conduct vocational rehabilitation and allowed cooperation with public and private agencies to establish and provide facilities and services.
"The commission shall conduct a program to provide vocational rehabilitation services to eligible blind disabled individuals."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf"To achieve the purposes of the program, the commission may ... cooperate with other public and private agencies in studying the problems involved in providing vocational rehabilitation and in establishing, developing, and providing necessary or desirable facilities and services."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
Did JM-167 overrule an earlier opinion?
Yes. It expressly overruled Attorney General Opinion MW-389.
"We overrule the opinion contained in Attorney General Opinion MW-389 (1981)."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
Background and legal framework
Article III, section 35 barred general legislation inside a general appropriations bill.
"The Texas Supreme Court has long construed article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution to prohibit the enactment of general legislation in a general appropriations bill."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
The opinion found that the rider did more than control spending because it tried to impose an affirmative contracting duty on the commission.
"The rider in question is not confined to detailing, limiting, or restricting the expenditure of the appropriated sum, but attempts to confer an affirmative duty on the commission to expend the appropriated funds to 'enter into a contract with the Texas Lions League or a similar organization.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
Holding
"The State Commission for the Blind may use funds appropriated by article II, item 5.c., ch. 1095, at 5949 of the Sixty-eighth Legislature to contract with public or private agencies for older blind contract training. The rider relating to funds appropriated in item 5.c. violates article III, section 35, of the Texas Constitution, in that it attempts to make mandatory the entering of a contract which is permissible under general law. Attorney General Opinion MW-389 is overruled."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0167
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0167.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
June 18, 1984
Mr. John C. Wilson
Executive Director
State Commission for the Blind
P. O. Box 12866
Austin, Texas 78711
Opinion No. JM-167
Re: Whether the State Commission for the Blind may contract with private organizations to perform rehabilitative services for blind adults
Dear Mr. Wilson:
The General Appropriations Act of the Sixty-eighth Legislature includes the sum of $272,146 for older blind contract training in the appropriation to the State Commission for the Blind for each of the fiscal years ending August 31, 1984 and August 31, 1985. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 1095, art. II, 5.c., at 5949. The Appropriations Act also contains a rider stating that the money shall be expended for a contract with the Texas Lions League or a similar organization to provide rehabilitative services to blind adults at the Kerrville camp or a similar facility outside Austin.
The Texas Lions League for Crippled Children is discontinuing its training program for older blind at Kerrville, Texas, on May 31, 1984. You ask whether the Commission for the Blind may use funds appropriated in item 5.c. to contract with Lighthouse organizations to perform rehabilitation services to blind adults. We conclude that the commission is authorized to expend item 5.c. funds with such organizations for older blind contract training.
The Texas Supreme Court has long construed article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution to prohibit the enactment of general legislation in a general appropriations bill. See Moore v. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tex. 1946); Attorney General Opinion V-1253 (1951). Therefore, as long as a general appropriations bill includes only subjects of appropriating money and limiting the use thereof in harmony with general legislation, it may relate to any number of different "subjects and accounts."
It is well established that a rider to a general appropriation act is valid if its only effect is to "detail, limit or restrict the use of funds therein appropriated" and if it does not conflict with general legislation. Hence, the legislature cannot make mandatory by a general appropriation rider that which general law makes permissive or discretionary.
The rider in question is not confined to detailing, limiting, or restricting the expenditure of the appropriated sum, but attempts to confer an affirmative duty on the commission to expend the appropriated funds to enter into a contract with the Texas Lions League or a similar organization. Section 91.052(b) of the Human Resources Code places the decision to enter into such a contract within the discretion of the commission.
Section 91.052 provides that the commission shall conduct a program to provide vocational rehabilitation services to eligible blind disabled individuals. To achieve the purposes of the program, the commission may cooperate with other public and private agencies in studying the problems involved in providing vocational rehabilitation and in establishing, developing, and providing necessary or desirable facilities and services.
Because the general appropriation rider in question attempts to make mandatory that which general law makes permissive or discretionary, we conclude that the rider is invalid general legislation contained in a general appropriation act in violation of article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution. We overrule the opinion contained in Attorney General Opinion MW-389 (1981).
Under the authority granted by section 91.052(b)(1) of the Human Resources Code, the commission, in its discretion, may use funds appropriated in article II, section 5.c. of the current general appropriations act to contract with public or private agencies to provide rehabilitation services to blind adults.
SUMMARY
The State Commission for the Blind may use funds appropriated by article II, item 5.c., ch. 1095, at 5949 of the Sixty-eighth Legislature to contract with public or private agencies for older blind contract training. The rider relating to funds appropriated in item 5.c. violates article III, section 35, of the Texas Constitution, in that it attempts to make mandatory the entering of a contract which is permissible under general law. Attorney General Opinion MW-389 is overruled.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.