Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />Citation/Title <br />Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. LO-90-31 <br /> <br />*5269 Office of the Attorney General <br />state of Texas <br /> <br />Letter Opinion No. LO-90-31 <br />June 1, 1990 <br /> <br />Honorable Robert M. Saunders <br />Chairman <br />House Environmental Affairs <br />P. O. Box 2910 <br />Austin, Texas 78768-2910 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Saunders: <br /> <br />You ask whether a city may pay the expenses of spouses of city council <br />members and city employees who are attending conventions. <br /> <br />In Attorney General Opinion MW-93 (1979) this office considered whether a <br />school district could pay the expenses of spouses and other persons who <br />accompanied school board members to board-related activities. The opinion <br />concluded that article III, sections 51 and 52, of the Texas Constitution would <br />prohibit such expenditures in most circumstances: <br /> <br />[In] our opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of <br />persons who have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and <br />whose connection with public school matters is based solely on their <br />r~lationship of blood, marriage, or friendship with a board member. You have <br />submitted no facts indicating that the presence of a school board member's <br />spouse, relative or other associate at a convention will serve school <br />purposes. The presence of these persons at a convention appears to be purely <br />social. Although a spouse's presence at a convention may facilitate personal <br />contact among administrators and thus contribute in some small way to $chool <br />purposes, we believe the benefit accruing to the school district is too <br />minimal to sustain the expenditure. Cf. Warwick v. United States, 236 F. <br />Supp. 761 (E.D. Va. 1964) (deductibility from federal income tax return of a <br />wife's travel expenses. <br /> <br />We note that Attorney General Opinion H-1089 (1977) concluded that spouses <br />of public officials could in some cases received free transportation on <br />state-owned aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be <br />provided legally depended in part on the nature of the office, on the <br />.spouse's traditional role, and the spouse's connection with a particular <br />trip. This opinion must be limited to its facts, and you have presented no <br />facts and we are aware of none which would establish a public purpose served <br />by the spouse's attendance at a convention. <br /> <br />Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.s. Govt. works <br />