2002-09-24 City Council Travel Review Committee Meeting-no official minutes

Browse Search

, .~ p '~~rreralLa Porte-Spouse Trav.eimbur~~2r~ ~ ~S . J Page 1 of2 Herrera, Bob -r-LI , *~::=; ~ ~ ---------------.---- --------~---' ~i~----'---'---' ,- .---.- --" ?lcoc..\, fbV'w~ c.. c..s~,,\ lO \(: \J~~ Cl\ k,'\fC) . il..."^,, (.~ l\ ....... <-~ ~ $f..w. -\\..;~ <-7 (t~ .., I-d 0..... From: ScoU, Crystal Sent: Monday, July 01,20026:15 PM To: Herrera, Bob Subject: FW: Herrera/La porte-Spore.Travel{.B ~Dty ~ FYI Sounds like good news. l\UG...2 112002"" CS By -----Original Message----- ------ ' From: owner-citymanager@ci.la-porte.be.us [mailto:owner-citymanager@ci .Ia-porte. be. us JOn Behalf Of Monte Akers Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 4:35 PM To: Multiple recipients of list citymanager Subject: FW: Herrera/La Porte-Spouse Travel Reimbursement Mr. Herrera: Gary Watkins asked me to contact you about the issue of spouse expenses. You were in a meeting when I called, so I will send you this message instead. Despite the 1990 Attorney General's op~n~on (L.a. No. 90-031), it is not uncommon for cities to include spouse expenses in reimbursable travel expenses for their officers. The key question is whether a majority of the city council believes that a-public purpose is accomplished by the expenditure. In your case, if there is language in your employee agreement allowing the reimbursement, then it would seem that the city council that entered into the agreement recognized the public purpose as being the city's employment of a qualified city manager, and that reimbursement of spouse travel is a compensable term of your employment. Should a majority of the city council now feel differently, the city is still bound by the previous council's opinion if it is part of your employment contract. The basis for the prohibition against paying spouses' expenses is a Texas Constitutional provision-Art. 3, Sec. 52-that prohibits the legislature from allowing local governments to lend credit, spend money, or allow the use of public property solely for the benefit of an individual, corporation, or association. The converse of this rule is that the ~ending of public mon~ in a way that benefits an individual, corporation, or association is allowed so lono as the benefit occurs as 2art of a larger public purpose. Accordingly, while it is a violation of Art. 3, Sec. 52 to decide just before Christmas to give all of the city employees a bonus (because it would be spending city money for services already provided and paid for), it is not a violation to include a payment to all employees, made at Christmas, either as longevity payor as a regularly scheduled paycheck, if doing so is budgeted and provided for in the city's personnel program. Similarly, while it would be a violation for a city employee or officer to use city vehicles for personal purposes, it is not a violation for a city to include an automobile for a city employee or offi.cer as part of that person's compensation package. In your situation, while the Attorney General's opinion can be pointed to as a basis for questioning the reimbursement of spouse travel expenses, analysis should lead to the conclusion that the city has made a valid decision to do so and 7/2/2002