HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-24 City Council Travel Review Committee Meeting-no official minutes
e
City of La Porte
Established 1892
September 11, 2002
Mr. Rod Rotherrnal, Chairman
2601 S. Broadway #32
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Harry Fuller
9919 North "pll Street
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Nick Barrera
9510 Carlow
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Troy Burmaster
10809 Collingswood
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Alton Porter
P.O. ~ox 652
La Porte, TX 77572-0652
Mr. Lindsay Pfeiffer
602 S. Nugent
La Porte, TX 77571
Ms. Juliet Daniel
401 North 7th Street
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Douglas Martin
1103 Oakleaf
La Porte, TX 77571
Ms. Paula Bridges
813 Rivercreek
La Porte, TX 77571
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The La Porte City Council, at its regular meeting of September 9,
2002, appointed each of you to a committee to review the City
Council travel expense policy ordinance, and make recommendations
for revisions to such policies. The ordinance provides that
pending the review and revision of Council travel policies, the
City shall not payor reimburse travel expenses for City Council
spouses.
I enclose with this letter copies of the following documents:
1. Ordinance No. 2000-2434, passed by the City Council on
September 25, 2000, which is the current City Council
travel policy ordinance;
2. City Counc"il Resolution No. 81-13, passed by City Council
on June 10, 1981, on Council spousal travel expenses; and
3. Attorney General Opinions LO-90-31 and MW-93, on spousal
travel expenses.
1.0. Box 1115 u La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 " (281) -171-5020
e
e
Rod Rothermal, Et Al
September 11, 2002
Page 2
'Chairman Rod Rothermal will be contacting each of you soon to
discuss with you when you would be available to meet, in order to
schedule an organizational meeting of the committee. Meetings of
the committee will be held in City Council Chambers at City Hall.
On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank each of you
for your agreement to participate in this committee, and make
recommendations to the City Council on this important subject.
B~:
C~OF LA PORTE 'J
4 rma~------
Mayor
NLM : sw
Enclosures
cc: City Council
Mr. John Joerns, Acting City Manager
Ms. Martha Gillett, City Secretary
AUG-06-2002 rUE 02:52 PM
e
FAX NO, e
p, 02
4
. .
.'
OJU)INANCE ~o. 2000"'1.{3 t
.~ ORD~NANCE EBTABLISK~NG GUIDELZWES FOR TRAVEL BY CITY COUNCIL
KEMBERS TO EDUCATXONAL HEETINGS OUTSIDE HARRIS AND GAL~ESTON
cotnnXES; FINDING COKPLIA!fCE WITH nIE OPEN KEETIJlGS LAW i U1)
PROVIDING AN EFp,ECTlVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINE~ BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
section 1.
The city council establishes the follo~inq
guidelines, which shall apply to attendance by members of city
council at educational meetings for elected officials, outside
Harris and Galveston Counties:
1. A commitment for attendance should be given to the city
Secretary at the earliest possible. date so that the lowest
possible air fare and other discounts can he obtained. This
will normally be thirty (30) days prior to the event when air
travel is involved. The city Secretary shall aggressively
solicit attendance information if deadlines are approaching
and a timely decision is needed.
2. . If arrangements are made later, the difference in cost will be
the responsibility of the councilperson. When notification is ""
given and attendance does not occur, the expenses already paid
will be reimbu~sed to the city by adjusting the monthly check.
~ If there is a good reason for the lack of travel coordination,
the City Council ~ay waive the penalty.
3. No travel or other arrangements will be made for children or
grandchildren unless that cost has been prepaid. .
4. Prior to departure each councilperson will be given a stipend
of $75.00 per day, or more, if authorized by city council, to
cover meals and incidental expenses. Depending on travel
arrangements the per diem will be prorated to match the
depart.ure and return dates. Airport parking is not considered
an inci:dental expense, and must be accounted for with. a"
receipt on the request for reimbursement.
S. Hotel stay and airport parking will be reimbursed only for the
interval ~rom the first night before the opening general
session to the day following the closing meeting. Additional
time will be approved for attendance at meetings where the
councilperson serves en a committee or is on the program.
6. Taxis may be used between the hotel and the airport if no
hotel transportation is available. Mass transit should be
used for intracity travel when available unless there are time
constraints. Car rental is the responsiDility of the
councilperson and will not be reimbursed unless pre-approved
by the city Council.
AUG-06-2002 rUE 02:52 PM
e
FAX NO. e
P, 03
7. Expense accounts must be submitted within ten (10) days after
returning from a meeting. If the expense report is not
received by the city with~n ten (10) days after co~pleting
travel, the City Manager shall refer the ,matter to the city
council for handling". ,Receipts are mandatory for
reimbursement except when otherwise exempted by this policy.
Subsequent trips ,will not be allowed until a request for
reimbu~sement has been 'subm~tted for ,all previous trips.
B. Any exceptions to this policy shall be approved by City
council at a regular ~eeting. .
section 2.
The city council officially finds, d~termines,
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place and subject of this meeting of the city Council was
posted at a place convenient to the pu~lic at the city Hall of the
city for the time required by law preceding this m~etinq , as
required by the Open Meetings ~aw, . Chapter 551, Texas Government
Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public as required
by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted
upon. The city Council further ratifies, approves and confirms
such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this ~ day of ~e,nP.Ll2. , 2000.
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY'~/~ ~
orman L. Malone
Mayor
AUG-06-2002 rUE 02:53 PM
e
FAX NO. e
P, 04
I ~
I
-..
ATTEST:
e e
~ '
Cu~ '.~ rv\~...r o.-J.
Go~ ~ ~~;t
, '~
1\J \~\,'
(z:r Jr\
,
'. ,
\_' . ,,--<I
.,../irilf;'n'YJ
~SOtUT:tON'lfNb.1 ~
i,,_ J
WHEREAS, elected 9fficials'of the City of La Porte from time
to time ar~ required to represent the City at general meetings,
confrences and before other governmental and.non-governmental
agencies; And,
.
,
;
'WHEREAS, said representation furthers the best interest of
the community' either by expressing the interest or position of
the City; or, said representation furthers the best interest of
the community by enhancing their abilities 'to function in their
roles through the exchange of ideas and'information with other
elected or appointed o~ficials.
NOW THEREFORE, BE I'D RESOLVED by the Ci ty Counci~ of the
City of La Porte, Texas that the following'policy shall become
effective from' and after its passage:
~lL~S~ The City of La Porte shall reimburse elected
officials for actual expenses.incured when representing the City
of La Porte in their official capac~ty. ' .
~Ib~ Whep elected officials represent the City of
La Porte at functions' that protocol dictates spouse' attendance
and/or functions that have special programs for spouses, the
',City of La Porte shall reimburse the elected official for actual
expenses in cured related to the spouses 'attendance.
. .'
SECTION THREE: The Mayor and Council shall determine the
functions to which section two shall -.be;'appropriate.
PASSED and APPROVED ~is the //.JzL day.. of Q .../1~ '
1981. ?
- Cj~ _ '
J.J..Meza, Mayor
AT \ ST'c1,ti)~
e ty . Waters
'\ Ci ty cretary
"
............ .
e
e
Page 1
Citation/Title
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. LO-90-31
*5269 Office of the Attorney General
state of Texas
Letter Opinion No. LO-90-31
June 1, 1990
Honorable Robert M. Saunders
Chairman
House Environmental Affairs
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910
Dear Mr. Saunders:
You ask whether a city may pay the expenses of spouses of city council
members and city employees who are attending conventions.
In Attorney General Opinion MW-93 (1979) this office considered whether a
school district could pay the expenses of spouses and other persons who
accompanied school board members to board-related activities. The opinion
concluded that article III, sections 51 and 52, of the Texas Constitution would
prohibit such expenditures in most circumstances:
[In] our opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of
persons who have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and
whose connection with public school matters is based solely on their
r~lationship of blood, marriage, or friendship with a board member. You have
submitted no facts indicating that the presence of a school board member's
spouse, relative or other associate at a convention will serve school
purposes. The presence of these persons at a convention appears to be purely
social. Although a spouse's presence at a convention may facilitate personal
contact among administrators and thus contribute in some small way to $chool
purposes, we believe the benefit accruing to the school district is too
minimal to sustain the expenditure. Cf. Warwick v. United States, 236 F.
Supp. 761 (E.D. Va. 1964) (deductibility from federal income tax return of a
wife's travel expenses.
We note that Attorney General Opinion H-1089 (1977) concluded that spouses
of public officials could in some cases received free transportation on
state-owned aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be
provided legally depended in part on the nature of the office, on the
.spouse's traditional role, and the spouse's connection with a particular
trip. This opinion must be limited to its facts, and you have presented no
facts and we are aware of none which would establish a public purpose served
by the spouse's attendance at a convention.
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.s. Govt. works
e
e
Page 2
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. LO-90-31
The same conclusions would be applicable to a city. See Tex. Const. art.
III, ~ 51 (applicable to cities, counties, and other political subdivisions).
You also ask whether a city may seek reimbursement for expenses it has paid
in contravention of article III, s~ctions 51 and 52. Where payment is made from
public funds under mistake of law, the public body may seek reimbursement. City
of Taylpr v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1945); Cameron County v. Fox, 2 S.W.2d
433 (Tex. Comm. App. 1'928, jdgmt adopted). This is an exception to the general
rule that money paid under a mutual mistake of law may not be recovered. City
of Taylor v. Hodges, supra. The city would therefore be authorized to seek
reimbursement. It has discretion, however, whether to do so in a particular
case. Such factors as the amount of funds to be reimbursed, the ease of
collection, and the legal and other costs incident to collection might be
considered. See Attorney General Opinions JM-910 (1988); MW-93 (1979).
Very truly yours,
Sarah Woelk
Chief
Letter Opinion Section
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
e
e
Page 1
Citation/Title
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93
*10733 Office of the Attorney General
state of Texas
Opinion No. MW-93
December 3, 1979
Re: Payment by board of trustees of, an independent school district for
expenses incurred by relatives of board members or other nonboard persons who
attended school board-related activities.
Honorable Rene A. Guerra
Criminal District Attorney Pro Tern
Hidalgo County
Edinburg, Texas 78539
Dear Mr. Guerra:
You ask whether the trustees of an independent school district may pay
expenses incurred by spouses or other persons who accompany school board members
to board-r€lated activities, even though these persons are not school board
members or employees of the school district. You inform us that school board
members of an independent school district have attended school-related
conventions accompanied by their spouses. The board of trustees has authorized
payment for the actual expenses, including travel, meals, and lodging, incurred
by spouses of board members in attending conventions.
The board's authority to pay expenses incurred by board members in attending
school-related conventions derives from the following provision of the Education
Code:
Local school funds. . . may be used'for the purposes enumerated for state
,and county funds . . . and for other purposes necessary in the conduct of
public schools to be determined by the board of trustees. ...
Educ. Code ~ 20.48(c). In Attorney General Opinion H-133 (1973) this office
considered whether a school board member could be reimbursed for his expenses in
attending a convention of school administrators. He had been designated a .
delegate and was to participate in a program concerning matters important to the
school district. The opinion concluded that the school board could pay these
expenses where it determined that payment was 'necessary in the conduct of the
public schools.' Each determination and the legality of a particular
expenditure was ultimately for the courts. If the expenditure served only
private ends and did not have a public purpose it would make an unconstitutional
grant of public funds in violation of article III, sections 51 and 52 of the
Texas Constitution. See Attorney General Opinion H-70 (1973).
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
e
e
Page 2
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93
The school board generally has discretion to determine whether a particular
payment is 'necessary in the conduct of the public scho,ols.' However, in our
opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of persons who
have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and whose connection
with public school matters is based solely on their relationship of blood,
marriage, or frienship with a board member. You have submitted no facts
indicating that the presence of a school board memberfs spouse, relative or
other associate at a convention will serve school purposes. The presence of
these persons at a convention appears to be purely social. Although a spouse's
presence at a convention may facilitate personal contact among administrators
and thus contribute in some small way to school purposes, we believe the benefit
accruing to the school district is too minimal to sustain the expenditure. Cf.
Warwick v. United states, 236 F. Supp. 761 (E.D. Va. 1964) (deductibility from
federal income tax return of a wife's travel expenses).
We note that Attorney General Opinion H-1089' (1977) concluded that spouses of
public officials could in some cases receive free transportation on state-owned
aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be provided
legally depended in part on the nature of the office, on the spouse's
traditional role, and the spouse's connection with a particular trip. This
opinion must be limited to its facts, and you have presented no facts and we are
aware of none which would establish a public purpose served by the spouse's
attendance at a convention.
You next ask whether school board members who received payments for expenses
incurred by non-members should be required to reimburse the school district.
Where payment is made from public funds under mistake of law, the public body
may seek reimbursement. City of Taylor v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1945);
Cameron County v. Fox, 2 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Cornm. App. 1928, jdgmt adopted).
This provides an exception to the general rule that money paid under a mutual
mistake of law may not be recovered. City of Taylor v. Hodges, supra; Gould v.
City of El Paso, 440 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Civ. App.--El Paso 1969, writ ref'd
n.r.e.); Nunn-Warren Pub. Co. v. Hutchinson County, 45 S.W.2d 651 (Tex. ' Civ.
App.--Amarillo 1932, writ ref'd). Compare County of Galveston v. Gorham, 49
Tex. 279 (1878); Stegall v. McLennan County, 144 S.W.2d 1111 (Tex. Civ. App.--
Waco 1940, writ dism. jdgmt cor.). Although the court in Hayward v. City of
Corpus Christi, 195 S.W.2d 995 (Tex. Civ. App.--Waco 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
stated in dicta that interest payments made by a city under mistake of law could
not be recovered, its decision actually rested on the ground that the statute of
limitations barred recovery. Thus, the schoo~ board has authority to require
reimbursement of travel expenses illegally paid. See also Educ. Code ~ 23.26(a)
(trustees may sue and be sued).
*10734 As a general rule, school trustees have broad powers of control and
management over the school district, and the courts will not interfere unless a
clear abuse of power and discretion appears. Nichols v. Aldine Ind. School
Dist., 356 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston 1962, no writ): Kissick v.
Garland Ind. School Dist., 330 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1959, writ
ref'd n.r.e.). Where the school board members themselves have received
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original u.s. Govt. works
e
e
Page 3
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93
unauthorized travel expenses, their own self-interest prevents them from
impartially deciding to forego repayment. We believe their usual discretion is
significantly limited in this case. Cf. Penal Code ~ 39.01 (official
misconduct). We believe the board may exercise reasonable discretion in seeking
reimbursement from persons no longer on the board. In making its decision it
can consider such factors as the amount of funds to be reimbursed, the ease of
collect~on, and the legal and other costs incident to collection.
SUMMAR Y
The trustees of an independent ~chool district may not ordinarily pay the
travel expenses of spouses and other persons who accompany school board
members to board-related activities. The board has authority to seek
reimbursement for payments made for such travel expenses.
Very truly yours,
Mark White
Attorney General of Texas
John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General
Ted L. Hartley
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by
Susan Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
C. Robert Heath
Chairman
David B. Brooks
Bob Gammage
Susan Garrison
Rick Gilpin
William G Reid
Bruce Youngblood
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93
Lonny Zwiener
e
e
Page 4
Copyright (e) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
e
e
September 16, 2002
Martha -
Talked to City of Pasadena. They nave no written Council Travel Policies. However, the
lady did say that the city does not pay any spouse's expenses as far as air fare, meals,
registration, etc. They include the spouse on the hotel reservation, but that is all they
cover.
Cherie
Sep 16 02 10:44a
Cii Hall ".
281-478-7217
.
p. 1
City of Deer Park
710 East San Augustine St - PO Box 700
Deer Park Tx 77536
Telephone 281.479.2394
Fax 281.478. 7217
www.ci.deer-park.tx.us
Date tJ- JIP -vc2/
~:i::itJ;;~1!~~H'
sendu,J/(t/L ~6Mc
Dept/Div ' A 7 'J!i?r
Phone No
Fax No
Message:
Number of pages being sent, ~ inclllding cover slteet
Confirmation required: Yes_No_
Sep 16 02 10:44a
-'"
<'..\ ;
......-::'\.. ~ :
\0' .\
~/\).
(\\\'
r:~'\\..j) :-
\\ -; ~~
,~/
C. Hall
28.8-1211
p.2
~~l
RESOLUTION NO. q 't .-1 0
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEER PARK, TEXAS.
ADOPTING A TRAVEL POLICY FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
OF THE CITY OF DEER PARK.
WHEREAS, the Deer Park City Council finds it is in the best interest of the City of
Deer Park for the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Deer Park to have a
travel policy; and
WHEREAS, the Deer Park City Council, in an effort to conserve City resources,
finds that it would be beneficial to adopt a travel policy for the Mayor and the City
Cou ncil:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Deer Park City Council hereby
approves and adopts the travel policy for the Mayor and City Council Members as
attached hereto.
I' ~ov~~B~
PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~t.h day of tgbef,1999.
czr:
,,- . 1 /
,.. /11/1>'4 [Jf;i~"/~
City Secretary ...
l
(T ravel Policy. Res)
Sep 16 02 10:44a
Cit~ Hall
e
281-478-7217
e
p.3
A
~i
......::""~ \,
\0) \)
(;~,I'G\)
\ \Jf0
~_/
TRAVEL POLICY FOR
THE CITY OF DEER PARK
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. Ageroval Required for Travel on City Business. The City of Deer
Park will pay the expenses of the Mayor and City Council Members for travel related to
City busines's or to attend training, seminars, or conferences. All travel of the Mayor or
Council Members must be approved in advance by the .City Council in order for the City
to be responsible for the expenses incurred.
2. Reimbursement of Actual Expenses. The City will pay the actual cost
of the expenses incurred by the Mayor or Council Members as authorized by the City
Charter, Code of Ordinances, and within this policy.
3. Receipts Required for Reimbursement. Receipts for hotels and airfare
must always be provided. Receipts for registration fees or any other expenses over
$25.00 also must be provided. Receipts for all other expenses less than $25.00 should
also be provided except that, if lost or otherwise unavailable, a detailed listing of the
expense, type, location, date and amount shall,be provided.
4. Transportation.
a. The City will pay for the round trip airfare - coach class - for authorized
travel by the Mayor and Council Members.
b. Other forms of transportation may be used by the Mayor or Council
Members, however, the City will not reimburse more than the cost of coach class'
airfare.
c. The City will reimburse the reasonable expenses of a vehicle rental if
needed for transportation at the destination of the trip.
d. The City will reimburse the expenses for taxis Or other reasonable ground
transportation.
e. The City will pay for airport parking required while the Mayor and Council
Member is out of town. At the destination, the City will pay required parking fees for
personal vehicles, city vehicles, or rented vehicle.
f. The Mayor or Council Member may use their personal vehicle for out-of..'
town travel. The City will pay a mileage reimbursement in an amount established each
year by the Director of Finance. The mileage reimbursement amount is set at the rate
allowable by the IRS for expense deductions for income tax purposes. When the Mayor
or Council Members use their personal vehicle on a trip where the destination is outside
the state of Texas, the maximum amount the City will reimburse for travel expenses to
and from the destination (including lodging, meals, and mileage reimbursement) is the
amount of the round trip airfare - coach class - based on the price of a ticket purchased
21 days in advance of departure. The City will pay for personal vehicle mileage while at
the destination.
g. If the Mayor or Council Member is driving their personal vehicle on city
business outside of the City of Deer Park and has car failure, the City will pay the
2
Sep is 02 10:44a
~(Q)[P)W
Cit~ Hall
e
281-4?8-?21?
e
p.4
expense of towing the vehicle to a garage or repair shop. The Mayor or Council
Member will be responsible for the cost of repairs to the vehicle.
5. Accommodations.
a. The City will pay the actual expenses for a single room at a hotel, motel or
other lodging facility.
b. The City will pay the cost of parking a city vehicle or personal vehicle at a
hotel. motel or other lodging facility.
c. The City will pay for all business calls (related to City. business) by the
Mayor or Council Members and calls to immediate family members.
7. Meals. The City will pay for all meals, up to a maximum of $50.00 per
day, while the Mayor or Council Member is in travel status. There shall be
no reimbursement or City funds used for alcoholic beverages.
8. . Incidental Expenses.
a. The City will not pay for dry cleaning, shoe shines, haircuts, magazines or
books, tickets to the theater or sports events, or other such personal or incidental
expenses.
b. The City will pay for tapes or publications related to and purchased at
seminars or conferences being attended by the Mayor or Council
Members.
9. Advances and Reimbursements.
a. The City will issue an advance for estimated travel expenses, if requested
by the Mayor or Council Members.
b. Following a trip for which an advance has been received or for which a
reimbursement of expenses will be requested, the Mayor or Council Member must file a
Travel Expense Statement with the City Manager within sixty (60) days of the date of
return .
c. It will not be required that the Mayor or Council Member file a Travel
Expense Statement for any trip where an advance was not received and no request for
reimbursement of any expenses is made.
3
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
.
BA~tTOuJrJ
e
ADMINISTRATNE REGULATIONS
TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND EXPENSE POLICY GUIDE
Purpose of the Regulation
Travel Authorization
Advance Payments
Expenses Approved for Reimbursement
A. Transportation
B. Lodging
C. Meals and Tips
D. Telephone
E. Registration Fees
F. Lodging, Meals & Travel Time When Traveling by Personal Automobile
G. Other Methods of Reimbursement
H. Incidental Expenses
1. Non-Allowable Expenses
1. Spouse/Family Travel
Travel Expense Report
Reimbursement
Settlement of Advance Payments
APPENDIX A: Travel Policy Clarifications
1. Travel Authorization
n. Expense Report
ill. Benchmark Reimbursement Rate
APPENDIX B: Mileage Reimbursement and Official Mileage Guide
o
July 1, 1999
PAGE
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
10
11
Page 1 of 12
e
e
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
TO TRAVEL POLICY
CHANGES EFFECTIVE 07/01/99
The travel policy update includes changes for meals and mileage. There were no other changes made to the
policy.
. Mileage rate changed from $0.31 per mile to $0.325 per mile. (Appendix B, Page 11)
. Daily allowance for meals changed from $28.00 per day to $34.00 and includes tips for meals.
(Moved from Page 5 to Appendix B, Page 11)
July 1, 1999
Page 2 of 12
e
e
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
IRA VEL AUTHORIZATION AND EXPENSE POLICY
1. Purpose of the Regulation
To protect the interest of the City and insure like treatment for all, uniform policies are established to
govern expense allowances to be granted City employees and City officials who travel out of the City on
City business.
2. Travel Authorization
All out-of-the-City travel at the expense of the City shall be made only on authorization of the
department head, with approval of the City Manager or one of the Assistant City Managers (City
Management). Before making a trip, the City employee must submit a "Travel Authorization Request"
form on which the nature of the trip, destination, times and dates of the beginning and end of official
leave and detail estimates of the cost must be stated. Same day travel or travel in the area requires only
the approval of the department head.
3. Advance Pavrnents
Employees will be allowed to request advance payment on estimated expenses to finance contemplated
travel on City business. Upon review, the City Management may authorize advance payment of the
estimated amount to the employee. When advance payments for travel expenses are made, the
reimbursement procedure, as stated in Section 6, must still be followed. Advancing money for travel
expense does not constitute approval for the expenditure of the entire amount so advanced, as all
expenditures must be justified and approved.
4. Expenses Aoproved For Reimbursement
The following list of expense classifications is for information and guidance in determining which
expenses are appropriate and reasonable when traveling on City business. The list is intended as a guide
and is not necessarily all-inclusive. Discretion remains with the City Management in approving travel
expenses to provide for unusual circumstances.
Items specifically prohibited include the purchase of personal items and alcoholic beverages. Prohibited
also are the expenses of the employee's family who accompany himlher on a trip.
Due to budgetary constraints, departments may set more restrictive policies for travel, but in no case can
the departmental policy exceed the limitations allowed in the City policy.
Officials and employees are expected to show good judgment about travel expenses and have proper
regard for economy in conducting business away from Baytown.
July 1, 1999
Page 3 of 12
e
e
(a) Transportation: The least expensive air fare (advance purchase, non-refundable tickets) will be
considered standard air travel. Other classes of air fare may be used if advance purchase, non-
refundable tickets are not available. Air travel is usually more economical in time and money
when making a long trip.
Round trip tickets shall be purchased when air, rail or bus transportation is used. Employees
should purchase tickets through a travel agency that will bill the City. A" Transportation
Authorization Request" should be completed and sent to Accounts Payable before tickets are
ordered. If the employee pays for the tickets, then receipts for travel expenditures must be
obtained and submitted with the Travel Expense Report. No travel allowances will be made over
the actual cost of travel.
Use of personal automobiles for travel may be approved when the convenience of the City is
served and when the convenience of the employee is served. When personal automobiles are
approved for the convenience of the City, reimbursement will be at the rate allowed by the
Internal Revenue Service using the most current "Official State Mileage Guide" to determine
mileage between cities. The same mileage reimbursement rate will be allowed between Baytown
and a Houston airport for employees (excluding employees who receive a monthly automobile
allowance) using personal automobiles to reach the airport. Parking fees will also be allowed if
the employee must park his/her car during the duration of his/her official leave of absence (a
receipt is necessary).
When personal automobiles are approved for the convenience of the employee, total allowance
shall in no case exceed the cost of the standard air travel. If an air travel rate is not available, the
allowance shall be determined by the City Management. When two or more employees are
traveling by personal automobile to the same destination on City business, they are encouraged to
car pool.
Mileage reimbursement will not be authorized for personal automobiles traveling within the City
or Harris and Chambers County if the employee is receiving a monthly automobile allowance
from the City.
Travel in City vehicles may be approved when circumstances warrant it. When such travel is
approved, purchase of gasoline, oil, other routine supplies and emergency repairs for the vehicle
will be allowed. The notation "City Vehicle Used" must be written on the Expense Report. All
receipts for such payments must be furnished to obtain reimbursements. Repairs to personal
vehicles will not be reimbursed by the City.
When air, rail or bus transportation is used, expenses for local transportation, such as taxicab
fare, will be allowed whenever such transportation is necessary for conducting City business.
(b) Lodging: Expenses will be allowed for adequate lodging. Hotel accommodations should be
appropriate to the purpose of the trip. Detailed receipts for lodging must be provided to obtain
reimbursement. The City uses IRS publication 1542 to verify the reasonableness of the hotel
reimbursement allowed. Refer to incidental expenses (Item h) for other charges incurred in
addition to lodging costs.
July 1, 1999
Page 4 of 12
e
e
(c) Meals: Meal expenses will be reimbursed based upon a flat fee depending on when the trip
started and ended as per Appendix A. Receipts are required for expenses above the per day
allowance and cannot exceed the per diem rates established by the Internal Revenue Service
publication 1542 using the high-low rates. Meals included as part of the registration fee will not
be reimbursed. Copies of agendas from the event attended should be included with the expense
report. Tips are included in the meal allowance.
(d) Telephone: Telephone calls will be allowed reimbursement for official calls and messages only.
(e) Registration Fees: Fees charged for registration at any convention or meeting are allowed for
reimbursement. A receipt or some proof of the fee, such as a copy of the conference program
setting forth the fee rate, must be provided with the Expense Report.
(f) Lodging. Meals and Travel Time When Traveling by Personal Automobile: In instances where
use of personal automobile for out-of-state travel is allowed for the convenience of the employee,
lodging, meals, and other expenses will be allowed on the same basis as if the employee traveled
by air.
(g) Other Methods of Reimbursement: If the City is to be reimbursed for the employee's travel
expenses by another government or agency, the employee may use the travel policy from that
government or agency for reimbursement of his/her travel expenses. A copy of the travel policy
for that government or agency must be attached to the employee's Expense Report. Also,
employees from other governments or agencies working with the City through joint task force
agreements :may use the travel policy of their government or agency. A copy of the travel policy
for that government or agency must be attached to the Expense Report.
(h) Incidental Expenses: Incidental expenses include, but is not limited to fees and tips for services,
such as baggage handlers. It does not include expenses for laundry, cleaning and pressing of
clothing, movie rental and snacks. Note - Laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing will be
reimbursed if stay is in excess of five (5) working days.
(i) Non-Allowable Expenses: In-hotel pay television and videos, health clubs, spas, alcoholic
beverages - dry cleaning or laundry.
CD SpouselFamily Travel: When accompanied by a family member, an employee shall pay all
incremental costs related to having the member along on the trip. Examples of incremental costs
include the difference in lodging cost between single and double occupancy and all meal and
incidental costs of the family. Spouses may accompany a City employee on official business
with such expenses reimbursed by the City only when the spouse has specific duties to perform
for the benefit of the City and such expenses are approved in advance by the City Management.
Estimated costs of spouse travel must be clearly identified on the Travel Request Form for
approval by the City Management.
5. Travel Expense Report
July I, 1999
Page 5 of 12
e
e
Any employee traveling on City business shall complete the "Travel Expense Report" in which a detail
record of his /her expenses must be stated. All items must be supported by receipts attached to the report
unless specifically exempted by this policy.
6. Reimbursement
To be reimbursed for travel expenditures, the employee must sign and have his/her department head
approve his/her "Travel Expense Report" and submit it to the Finance Department within five working
days after his/her return to Baytown. No reimbursement will be made or travel account closed until the
"Travel Expense Report" has been approved by the department head and the Finance Department. The
department head shall check for reasonableness and the Finance Department shall review the expenses
and check the accuracy of transportation costs and time covered. Where cause necessitates, the report
will be submitted to the City Management, together with the opinions of the department head and the
Finance Department, for review.
7. Settlement of Advance Pavments
If an employee has drawn expense money in advance, a settlement must be made on the basis of actual
expenses and the unused balance promptly deposited with the Finance Department. If actual expenses
exceed the estimate, upon approval of the Finance Department, the employee will be reimbursed by the
City. Again, it is emphasized that when advance payments are made, they do not constitute approval to
spend this amount. All expenditures must be justified. Expenses not justified by the employee must be
reimbursed to the City and can be deducted from the employee's payroll check.. Reimbursement should
be deposited with the central caisher and the reciept should be attached to the Travel Expense Report.
Monte Mercer
City Manager
o
July 1, 1999
Page 6 of 12
e
e
APPENDIX A
TRAVEL POLICY CLARIFICATIONS
Employees do not use the Travel Authorization Request form for same day travel from any location in Harris,
Chambers, or Galveston counties. Reimbursement can be received either from petty cash or by completing a
Travel Expense Report approved by the department director. The miles driven and the mileage reimbursement
rate must be shown on the document used for reimbursement. If the employee uses a personal automobile,
reimbursement for mileage will be at the "standard mileage rate" allowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The mileage reimbursement rate will be updated to remain consistent with the IRS reimbursement rate.
TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FORM
This form must be completed before an employee can go on any trip. The travel policy requires that the
department director and the City Management approve any city business trip before the employee can leave. If
the trip is not approved, it is possible the employee will not be reimbursed. The template for the Travel
Authorization Form contains instructions for completing the form. To complete the Request form, fill in the
blanks:
A. Name - The name of the employee requesting permission to take a trip.
B. Department - The name of the department to which the employee is assigned. If the department
is divided into divisions, use the name of the division.
C. Destination - The name of the city to which the employee will be traveling.
D. Date and Time of:
1. Departure - The date and time of departure.
2. Return - The date and time the employee will return to Baytown.
E. Purpose of the Trip - The reason the employee is taking the trip (to attend conference, meeting
concerning grant, etc.).
F. Account Number - The organization and account number to which the expenses for this trip are
to be charged. For example, currently the account number for travel expenses is 74041.
G. Social Security Number.
H. Others going to the same destination for the same purpose.
The employee must sign the Request form and have his/her department head and City Management
sign to indicate their approval of the trip. The employee is to send the completed form to Accounts
Payable for check issuance. Several vendors can be paid using the Travel Authorization Request form.
Include names and address of vendors for hotel and registration payments on the form.
July I, 1999
Page 7 of 12
e
e
EXPENSE REPORT
When the employee returns from the trip, the Employee Expense Report is to be completed. Period
covered should include the date and time of departure. To complete the Report, fill in the blanks:
SECTION A - Expense: Under the Day of the Week, enter the date (i.e., 09/30/96).
1. Transportation
A. Auto (Fuel) - If the employee purchased fuel for a City owned Vehicle enter the
amount of the purchase here. Receipts must be attached to the report for
reimbursement.
B. Mileage - There are two categories for computing mileage when a personal
automobile is used: To destination - Mileage is obtained from the OFFICIAL
STATE MILEAGE GUIDE or from the Finance Department. At destination -
Mileage driven on City business while at the destination. Record the mileage
and corresponding detail in Section C. The total mileage will be automatically
multiplied times the current mileage reimbursement rate and recorded in Section
A under the appropriate date.
C. Taxi, Limo, Auto Rental - Enter the amount of fees paid under the appropriate
date. Receipts are required for reimbursement for Limo Services and Auto
Rental. Receipts are not required for reimbursement for taxi fees; however, they
will be reviewed for reasonableness.
D. Other Auto - Enter the amount of other automobile related expenses. Provide
detail in Section D.
E. Commercial Transportation - If the commercial transportation (airline ticket,
train ticket, etc.) was prepaid by the City enter the amount that was paid under
the appropriate date in Section A and in Section B under "Prepaid". If the
employee paid for the commercial transportation, enter the amount in Section A
only. For reimbursement, the receipts must be attached to the report.
2. Hotel - If the hotel bill was prepaid by the City enter the amount that was paid under the
appropriate date in Section A and under the heading "Prepaid" in Section B. The paid
receipt should be sent to Accounts Payable to attach to the Check Issuance
Authorization.
If the employee paid the hotel bill, enter the amount under the appropriate date. If
parking fees and telephone calls are included on the hotel bill, those costs should be
itemized under the appropriate category. Receipts must be attached to the report for
reimbursement.
3. Meals - Enter the per diem amount paid for meals under the appropriate date. Refer to
the Benchmark Reimbursement Rate (page 9) for clarification. If meals are included in
July 1, 1999
Page 8 of 12
e
e
the registration fee, put ''Nt An to indicate that there are no expenses claimed for the
meal.
4. Telephone - The City will reimburse for telephone expenses that are for official city
business. Enter the amount under the appropriate date.
5. Parking Fees - To be utilized for all parking fees including airport parking and hotel
parking. To be reimbursed, receipts must be attached. If the employee parked at a
parking meter, write meter parking beside "Parking Fees" and the City will reimburse up
to two ($2.00) dollars per day. No receipts are required for reimbursement. Enter the
amount under the heading "Employee Paid".
6. Registration - If the registration fee was prepaid by the City enter the amount that was
paid under the appropriate date in Section A and under the heading "Prepaid"in Section
B. Receipts are not required. If the employee paid the registration fee, enter the amount
under Section A only. For reimbursement, the receipts must be attached to the report.
7. Miscellaneous/Incidental Expenses - The City will reimburse for other expenses deemed
necessary for official city business (Le., postage, etc.). List the type of expenses and
enter the amount under the appropriate date. Incidental expenses include, but is not
limited to fees and tips for services, such as waiter and baggage handlers. Tips should
generally not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the cost of meals. It does not include
expenses for laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing, movie rental and snacks. Note
- Laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing will be reimbursed if stay is in excess of
five (5) working days.
SECTION B - Items Prepaid by or Charged to City
The purpose of this section is to account for costs listed in Section A that should not be
reimbursed to the employee since the employee did not pay for the expense. This section would
track costs that were paid in advance, paid by City credit card or being directly billed to the
City. List expenses in the appropriate category based on type of expenditure and method of
payment.
SECTION C - Mileage
Record actual mileage and the corresponding detail in this section. Total mileage per day will
be automatically calculated, multiplied times the current reimbursement rate and recorded in
Section A. The mileage rate is reviewed and revised each January to reflect the rate allowed by
the Internal Revenue Service. The mileage reimbursement rate and an official mileage guide
for several cities is included in Appendix B. MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE USING THE
CURRENT APPENDIX B. Information regarding mileage to cities not listed can be obtained
by contacting the Finance Department. Unless otherwise authorized, the Official State Mileage
Guide for Texa.s should be utilized.
July 1, 1999
Page 9 of 12
e
e
SECTION D - Miscellaneous
Provide detail on miscellaneous expenses in this Section. For reimbursement, the receipts must
be attached to the report.
The Report has been set up to automatically calculate daily and Section totals. Enter the
amount of cash advance received by the employee on the "Travel Advance" line under
"Prepaid" in Section B. If the amount on the "Total Section A" line under "Employee Paid" is
greater than the amount on the "Total Section B" line, enter the difference on the "Due
Employee" line. If the amount on the "Total Section B" line is greater than the amount on the
"Total Section A" line, enter the difference on the "Due City" line.
The employee must sign the form as the traveler and have the department head approve the
expenses. If money is due to the City, the employee must return the money to the City. The
receipt is attached to the report that is submitted to Accounts Payable. Please do not send cash
or checks to Accounts Payable.
July 1, 1999
Page 10 of 12
e
e
APPENDIX B
THE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR 1999 IS THIRTY-ONE CENTS ($.31) PER MILE.
THE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WILL BE UPDATED TO REMAIN CONSISTENT
WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT RATE.
OFFICIAL MILEAGE GUIDE
This is a list of cities and the official mileage from Baytown to that city. This is the mileage that must
be used when you use your personal automobile to travel to other cities on City business. If the city to
which you are traveling is not on the list, contact the Finance Department to get the official mileage.
Official mileage is available for all major cities in the nation.
CITY
Abilene
Amarillo
Austin
Beaumont
Brownsville
College Station
Corpus Christi
Dallas
Denton
EI Paso
Fort Worth
Galveston
Huntsville
Laredo
Longview
Lubbock
MILEAGE
373
619
187
64
376
117
225
261
299
755
282
42
92
336
212
535
CITY
Marshall
New Braunfels
Odessa
Orange
Piano
Port Arthur
San Angelo
San Antonio
South Padre Island
Temple
Texarkana
Tyler
Waco
Wichita Falls
Baton Rouge, La.
New Orleans, La.
MILEAGE
221
200
519
86
278
68
387
222
390
192
290
209
205
395
243
320
MEALS
THE MEAL REIMBURSEMENT RATE Meal expenses will be reimbursed based upon a daily
allowance of $34.00 per day, including tips, depending on when the trip started and ended. The
following table details the maximum reimbursements allowed based on when the trip starts and ends.
Receipts are not required for the daily per diem allowance.
Meal
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Travel Start/End Times
Begins before 6 a.m. and extends beyond 8 a.m.
Before 12 noon to after 2 p.m.
Before 6 p.m. to after 8 p.m.
Total allowance per day
Allowance
$ 7.00
9.00
18.00
$ 34.00
In the event, a traveler's expenses are above the $34.00 per day allowance, all receipts for the day must
be submitted and cannot exceed the per diem rates established by the Internal Revenue Service
publication 1542 using the high-low rates. Any reimbursement for meals in excess of the daily
allowance is at the discretion of the department head and in no event will exceed the Internal Revenue
Service Publication rate for the specific city. If the specific city is not listed in the Internal Revenue
Service Publication 1572, then the per day allowance will be used.
July 1, 1999
Page 11 of12
.
e
Meals included as part of the registration fee will not be reimbursed. Copies of agendas from the event
attended should be included with the expense report. Tips are included in the meal allowance.
July I, 1999
Page 12 of 12
CITY OF BAYTOWN
TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
.
,
.
NO.
~""'Travele''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"""""""""""""""",...."""...."""",.....,,,..'\."""""""""""""""""""""""....""",""""""""""'~
~ s:
~ A. Name E. Purpose of the trip: ~
S s:
~ B. Department F. Account # ~
~ C. Destination G. Social Security # ~
~DI. Date and time of departure H. Othen going to the same destination for the same purpose: ~
~ 02. Datund time of return ~
S ~
~"""""""',....,",....,",.....,...."...,""""""""',....,""""....,..."",..."",...""""""""""""...""","""".........",...."""...""""""",...............",...."....""","....,....,""",...,",....,""~
TRAVEL ADVANCE REQUEST
~,...., ~,...,~
~ ~
S S
~ Estimated cost ~
S S
~ I. Penonal car ~
S s:
~ Z. Commercial transportation (type) ~
S s:
~ 3. Registration fees (enter amount in tolal column) ~
S s:
~ 4. Lodging days @ ~
S s:
~ 5. Meals (click button to go 10 schedule) ~
~ Ci. Other ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~~~ ~
~ ~
S s:
~ Registration Vendor ~
~ I Name/Address for Prepaid Payment ] ~
~ ~
S s:
~ ~~ ~
~ - ~
~ - ~
~ - ~
~ - ~
S Account No. s:
~ - ~
~ ~ j ~
~ Breakfast (before 6 a.m. 10 after 8 a.m.) $7.00 0 ~
~ Luucb (before 12 DODD 10 after 2 p.m.) $9.00 0 ~
~ Dinner (before 6 p,m. 10 after 8 p.m.) $18.00 0 ~
~ Totals ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ I have read and understand the tra\'el policy. I hereb~' certify that the aho\'e estimated expenses are anticipated to be incurred hy me as Ilecessal1' traveling expenses in the performance of 01" official ~
~ duties; attendance at a conference or con\'ention direcll" !'flates to the official duties of the department; any meals or lodging included in a reglstratio" fee have been deducted from this travel advance ~
~ request. If the tra\'el advance exceeds actual travel expenses Incurred, I will refund the Cil)' of Bay town the remaining unexpended funds within 5 da,'s after completion of the tr:l\'el period. If this report ~
~ and reimbursement is not submitted as required, III)' signatu!'f autho.izes the Cit~. to deduct the alllount of the travel ad\'a"ce from m)' pa)'check. ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
S s:
~ Traveler Date Department Head Date City Manager/ACM Date ~
~ ~
Sr."""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
""""""""""",.............."""",,,....,,,....,,,,....,,,,,,,,"......."","'"...."""......."...."""",....""....,..."",...."...."...,",............,:,"',....,...."",,'".
Advanced to To be paid aRer Procurement Mail check Return check Date check
Total amount Prepaid employee trip Total allocated cant directly to requester needed
0.00 (i) 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0
I 0.00 (i) 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
I 0,00 (i) 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0.00 (i) 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0.00 0 0.00 (i) 0.00 0.00 0 0
I 11.1111 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50.365
miles@
Other
Name/Address for Prepaid Payment
Day I Day 2 Day 3 Dav4 DayS Day6 Dav7 Day 8 Day 9 DavID Total
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0,00 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0,00 0 0,00 0.00
0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Vendor No.
No.
Account
Hotel/Motel Vendor
Name/Address for Prepaid Payment
Vendor No.
No.
Accoul
Be Signed By The City Manager Or Asst. City Manager Before Any Disbursements Can Be Made.
Authorization Must
4:08 PM
9/17/2002
.
-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF LA PORTE
CITY COUNCIL TRAVEL COMMITTEE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rod Rothermel at 6:30 p.m.
Members of Redistricting Committee Present: Rod Rothem1el, Nick Barrera, Harry
Fuller, Lindsay Pfeiffer, Paula Bridges, Alton Porter, Troy Burmaster, Bob Juliet Daniel
and Doug Martin.
Members of the Council Travel Committee Absent: None.
Staff Present: Mayor Norman Malone and City Secretary Martha Gillett.
Others Present: Pat Rothermel and Robert Daniels.
2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman Rothermel introduced each committee member.
3. DISCUSS SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEE
The committee discussed their scope of responsibility and noted it was outlined in the
material they were provided in their agenda packet.
4. REVIEW CURRENT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE OUTLINING
GUIDELINES FOR CITY COUNCIL TRAVEL
The committee reviewed and discussed existing policies provided in the agenda packet.
5. DISCUSS OTHER CITY POLICIES
The committee reviewed and discussed policies from the City of Bay town, City of
Pasadena and the city of Deer Park.
6. ESTABLISH NEXT MEETING DATE
The committee directed the City Secretary to prepare a report outlining the
recommendations discussed and agreed upon at the meeting. Chaim1an Rothermel will
call the members when it is finalized to establish next meeting date.
7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The committee agreed on the following recommendations to City Council:
. No travel advances will be made in advance to City Council. Charges will be
paid for by the Council Member and they will turn in receipts and seek
reimbursement from the City upon returning from a trip. Receipts must be turned
.
.
I
in for each expense including thorough documentation. Documentation should
include where, why and with whom the event took place.
. No spousal travel will be paid for City Council's spouses or family members.
. The Audit Committee or a committee appointed by Council needs to review any
questionable expenses not complying with established ordinance, policy or
guidelines to authorize reimbursement.
. I.R.S. per diem guidelines should be used to set a total
. Limits need to be set on the number of trips and/or the total dollar amount spent
per each Councilmember.
. Consider needs to be given on lifting the above mention restriction if the Council
Member is serving on a special Board or Committee.
5. PREVIOUS BUSINESS
No previous business was discussed
6. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business brought forward by the committee.
7. CALENDAR
Review Monthly Calendar
New Calendar Items and Deadlines
8. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Committee had no further comments.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Redistricting Committee Meeting was duly
adjourned at 8:32 p.m..
Respectfully submitted,
p,~~
Rod Rothermel, Chairman
Due to no future meetings the Chairman approved the minutes.
.
rE U W rEm
AUG 1 9 2002 ~I ~f'
By I.fl 'Jk:;1I11: -" )
-!J'{D f' m.
To: Council
From: Griffiths
Subject: Council Finances
Date: August 19,2002
I have a few suggestions while we go through the budget. Even though the traveling
committee has not been formed, these are topics that can be brought up now, in the
committee, or in our retreat.
1. With the current wave of accountability and to keep the city council aware of their own
spending, I propose that we set up individual accounts within the city council budget for
each council member. Each account will have an allocated amount to be used for travel,
golf tournaments, city dinners, and other expenditures due to the performing of the duties
of a city representative. In this format, each council member will have the ability to
easily see how much they have in their "account" for annual conferences, dinning, and
golf tournaments. This will also make each council member responsible for their own
expenditures. I am aware that it would be an easy set up for finance to build the accounts.
I t will be the responsibility of the City Secretary to make us aware, at the end of each
month, of our "statement." This way, we can see where we are spending the money as a
councilman. I believe this will ensure proper accountability as well as fiscal
responsibility from each member.
2. In regards to traveling, I believe we need to discontinue spousal travel' expenses to
conferences or conventions. I also believe we need to break up the per diem, or stipend,
by morning, afternoon, and evening. In this format, it is a more equitable distribution of
the resources. I propose a $15 morning, $20 afternoon, and $25 evening rate, with a new
per diem, or stipend, of $60. If our per diem is reconsidered as a "stipend," which is
reportable to the IRS, then there would be no need for us to turn in receipts. If we do keep
it as a per diem, I suggest we use the IRS guidelines for per diem amount. Also, if the city
pays for a breakfast, lunch, or dinner at a conference, the per diem should be returned. If
the per diem is changed to stipend, then we need to follow those rules regarding a
stipend.
3. I do believe it is appropriate for spouses or guests to accompany council members to
city functions or governmental social events. It is expected at these events that a spouse
or guest goes with the council member, so that council members don't go "stag."
These are just a few thoughts I have had while babysitting a sick Peter Andrew. I might
have a few more as he naps. But this will do for now.
Peter
e
,
Meetings and trips;
August 7, 2002
1) Harris County Mayor and Council Association One Thursday each Month.
2) TML meetings in State and Harris county
3) Local Chamber of Commerce Functions
4) Special events i.e., Barbour's Cut Seafarers Gala
5) National League of Cities Out of State
6) Houston Galveston Area County Annual Meeting
7) Neighborhood Centers invitation to participate in September 19 th
50th Anniversary of service to La Porte Program "To Serve and Protect". A
program of Celebration of Our Heroes, recognize our local and national and
national firefighters, police officers, and EMS at Sylvan Beach Pavilion.
8) Special School Programs, Breakfast With The Stars
9) La Porte Police Officers Annual Fund Raising, Association Golf Tournament
10) Habitat Fund Raising Golf tournament
II)Meetings with Local Citizens
12) EMS Fund Raising for Needing Children for Christmas
13) Council Retreat
These are just a few of the functions we attend.
? Spouses Expenses
Payment and Re-imbursement Procedures
Per Diem for each Councilman
Method of receiving money for trips, food, housing from city.
Method of return payment
,
.~ 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
~rlerrera/La Porte-Spouse Travel Reimbursement
· Il 6 It
) ,
e
Page 2 of2
that doing so is legal and binding upon the city.
Please let me know if you have other questions about this matter or if
I have misunderstood the issues.
Monte Akers ~
Director, Legal Services
-~
-
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Watkins [mailto:gwatkins@tml.org]
Sent: Monday, July 01,200210:19 AM
To: 'Monte Akers'
Subject: Herrera/La Porte-Spouse Travel Reimbursement
Just a reminder that Bob Herrera, City Manager, La Porte needs some help "'lith the issue of
spouse travel reimbursement for the elected officials of his city. He has become aware of
several cities that reimburse their elected officials. In particular, he is inquiring about the
legality of doing so in light of the 1990 AG opinion. Too, he evidently has language in his
employment agreement allowing his spouse's travel to be reimbursed when accompanying him
on certain trips. Bob can be reached at 281-471-5020 or citymanager@ci.1a-porte.tx.us.
Gary Watkins
Deputy Executive Director
Texas Municipal League
1821 Rutherford Lane, Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78754-5128
Qwatkins@tml.org
Phone:512-231-7444
FAX:512-231-7495
7/2/2002
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-04i(2001) -- John Cornyn AdministratiOI.
Page 1 of3
,4
~,./ Office of the Attorney General- State of Texas
~" John Cornyn
November 6,2001
The Honorable Tim Cone
Criminal District Attorney
Upshur County Justice Center
405 North Titus Street
Gilmer, Texas 75644
Opinion No. JC-0433
Re: Whether a county
commissioner may be reimbursed
for expenses incurred in the official
use of his personal vehicle <R...Q.:.
0402-JC)
Dear Mr. Cone:
You ask whether a county commissioner may be authorized to receive
reimbursement for the use of his personal vehicle to conduct his official duties.
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that a county commissioner may
be thus reimbursed.
Section 152.011 of the Local Government Code provides: "The commissioners
court of a county shall set the amount of the compensation, office and travel
expenses, and all other allowances for county and precinct officers and
employees who are paid wholly from county funds." Tex. Loc. Gov't Code
Ann. ~ 152.011 (Vernon 1999). In Attorney General Opinion H-992, this office
said that article 3912k, the predecessor statute of section 152.011, "gives to the
commissioners court authority to fix the amount which shall be received for
travel expenses by county and precinct officials, including the commissioners
themselves." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-992 (1977) at 2. The opinion
continues:
No formula is specified for the calculation of traveling expenses. The
legislature therefore apparently did not intend that members of the
commissioners court would be required to show that traveling expenses
allowed them had been actually incurred before payment could be made. Thus,
we believe the legislature intended, in enacting article 3912k, to authorize
counties to continue the type of lump-sum reimbursement for traveling
expenses previously authorized by the legislature. Nonetheless, we believe that
the use of the term "expense" in article 3912k requires that the sum set by the
commissioners as "travel expense" reflect the expenses actually incurred by
county officials in the conduct of official business. While county officials may
receive a monthly travel allowance without the need to account for every mile
traveled when their duties require traveling from their official stations on a
continuing basis, the sum set as a travel allowance must be premised upon
some basis of fact and reasonable calculation.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op49cornyn/jc-0433.htm
8/22/2002
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-Oi (2001) -- John Cornyn Administratio"
Page 2 of3
Id.
Likewise, in Attorney General Opinion JM.-148, the attorney general held that
a commissioners court was authorized to fix the amount of travel expense
allowed to members of the court "so long as the allowance is reasonably
related to official county business." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-148 (1984) at
3. Another opinion said that the county auditor may not require documentation
from members of the commissioners court who receive fixed monthly travel
expenses. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-879 (1988) at 3.
Both Attorney General Opinions H -992 and JM -879 indicate that a
commissioner's travel to and from his residence and office is not normally
reimbursable. It is our opinion that a county commissioner may be authorized
by the commissioners court to receive reimbursement for the use of his
personal vehicle to conduct his official duties.
SUMMARY
A county commissioner may be authorized by the commissioners court to
receive reimbursement for the use of his personal vehicle to conduct his
official duties.
Yours very truly,
L1~H
JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas
HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
NANCY FULLER
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel
SUSAN D. GUSKY
Chair, Opinion Committee
Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX,US
An Equal Employment Opporlllnity Employer
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op49cornyn/jc-0433.htm
8/22/2002
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. .JC-04i(2001) -- John Comyn Administratione
Page 3 of3
Home I Qpilliolls
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op49comynljc-0433.htm
8/22/2002
M \X Letter Opinion No. 90-1
e
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
June 1, 1990
Honorable Robert M. Saunders
Chairman
House Environmental Affairs
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910
Letter Opinion No. 90-031
Dear Mr. Saunders:
You ask whether a city may pay the expenses of spouses of city council
members and city employees who are attending conventions.
In Attorney General Opinion MW-93 (1979) this office considered whether a
school district could pay the expenses of spouses and other persons who
accompanied school board members to board-related activities. The opinion
concluded that article III, sections 51 and 52, of the Texas Constitution would
prohibit such expenditures in most circumstances:
[In] our opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of
persons who have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and
whose comlection with public school matters is based solely on their
relationship of blood, marriage, or friendship with a board member. You have
submitted no facts indicating that the presence of a school board member's
spouse, relative or other associate at a convention will serve school purposes.
The presence of these persons at a convention appears to be purely social.
Although a spouse's presence at a convention may facilitate personal contact
among administrators and thus contribute in some small way to school
purposes, we believe the benefit accruing to the school district is too minimal to
sustain the expenditure. Cf. Warwick v. United States, 236 F. Supp. 761 (E.D.
Va. 1964) (deductibility from federal income tax return ofa wife's travel
expenses.
We note that Attorney General Opinion H-I089 (1977) concluded that spouses
of public officials could in some cases received free transportation on state-
owned aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be provided
legally depended in part on the nature ofthe office, on the spouse's traditional
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo47mattoxllo90-031.htm
Page 1 of2
Mattox Letter Opinion No. 90-1
e
...
role, and the spouse's connection with a particular trip. This opinion must be
limited to its facts, and you have presented no facts and we are aware of none
which would establish a public purpose served by the spouse's attendance at a
convention.
The same conclusions would be applicable to a city. See Tex. Const. art. III, s
51 (applicable to cities, counties, and other political subdivisions).
You also ask whether a city may seek reimbursement for expenses it has paid in
contravention of article III, sections 51 and 52. Where payment is made from
public funds under mistake oflaw, the public body may seek reimbursement.
City of Taylor v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1945); Cameron County v. Fox,
2 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Comm. App. 1928,jdgmt adopted). This is an exception to
the general rule that money paid under a mutual mistake of law may not be
recovered. City of Taylor v. Hodges, supra. The city would therefore be
authorized to seek reimbursement. It has discretion, however, whether to do so
in a particular case. Such factors as the amount of funds to be reimbursed, the
ease of collection, and the legal and other costs incident to collection might be
considered. See Attorney General Opinions JM-910 (1988); MW-93 (1979).
Very truly yours,
Sarah W oelk
Chief
Letter Opinion Section
Texas OAG home page I Opinions & Open Government
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/l047mattox/l090-031.htm
Page 2 of2
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 1 of 4
June 21, 1996
The Honorable Delma Rios
Kleberg County Attorney
P.O. Box 1411
Kingsville, Texas 78364
Letter Opinion No. 96-065
Re: Whether the district
judges who appoint the county
auditor or the county commis-
sioners court may require the
county auditor to document
the auditor's travel ex-
penses (ID# 38805)
Dear Ms. Rios:
Local Government Code section 152.031(a) requires the
district judges who appoint the county auditor to set the
"auditor's travel expenses and other allowances.u This of-
fice has concluded in the past that an officer need not
provide documentation prior to receiving a fixed travel al-
lowance. You ask who may require a county auditor to
provide documentation of travel expenses where the auditor
receives a fixed travel allowance under section 152.031(a).
Consistent with our previous, analogous op1n1on, we
conclude that the county auditor may not be required to pro-
vide documentation prior to receiving a fixed travel
allowance. As part of the process by which the district
judges set the auditor's travel allowance for the upcoming
year, however, the district judges may request the auditor
to provide some documentation of past travel expenses. The
district judges then may extrapolate from that documentation
to determine whether the proposed travel allowance for the
upcoming year is reasonably tied to the auditor's official
travel needs.
In response to an earlier request from you, this office
issued Letter Opinion No. 95-038, which considers whether
the district judges who appoint a county auditor may include
a set car allowance in the auditor's salary. That letter
opinion concludes that Local Government Code section
152.031(a) authorizes the district judges to include a fixed
car allowance to cover official travel expenses, but the
district judges must tie the amount of the allowance to the
amount of travel expenses the auditor incurs while perform-
ing official county business. [footnote 1] Letter Opinion
No. 95-038 does not consider whether the county auditor may
be compelled to document his or her travel expenses.
[footnote 2] This is the question you ask us to consider
now.
Local Government Code section 152.031(a) authorizes the
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/lo48morales/lo96-065 . txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 2 of 4
district judges who appoint the county auditor to set, at a
hearing, the county auditor's annual salary and "travel ex-
penses and other allowances." Upon approval by a majority
of the judges, the district clerk certifies the judges' or-
der to the county commissioners court, which must record the
order in its minutes. [footnote 3] The county commission-
ers court may not debate the judges' order, nor do we find
that it has any power to approve or disapprove the order.
[footnote 4]
We believe we may draw our answer from Attorney General
Opinion H-992, in which this office considered a statute
substantially similar to Local Government Code section
152.031(a). There, this office determined that the commis-
sioners court may not, under the statutory predecessor to
Local Government Code section 152.011, require a county of-
ficer (other than auditor) to produce, prior to receiving a
lump-sum travel allowance, documents proving "every mile
traveled." [footnote 5] The statute at issue authorized
the county commissioners court to set the amount of travel
expenses and other allowances for certain county officers
(other than a county auditor). [footnote 6] Because the
statute did not specify how the commissioners court must
calculate travel expenses, the opinion reasons, the legisla-
ture "apparently did not intend that [county officers] would
be required to show that" they had actually incurred the
traveling expenses allowed them before they could receive
payment. [footnote 7] The opinion cautions, however, that
the expense allowance must correspond to the expenses the
county officials actually incurred while performing official
business. [footnote 8] Thus, " [w]hile county officials may
receive a monthly travel allowance without the need to ac-
count for every mile traveled . . . , the sum set as a
travel allowance must be premised upon some basis of fact
and reasonable calculation." [footnote 9]
Because the language of Local Government Code section
l52.03l(a) is so similar to the statute at issue in Attorney
General Opinion H-992, we believe the logic of Attorney Gen-
eral Opinion H-992 applies here. We accordingly conclude
that, under section 152.031(a), a county auditor may not be
required to provide documentation of his or her official
travel expenses to receive a fixed travel allowance. On the
other hand, the district judges who appoint the county audi-
tor and who calculate the auditor's annual salary and travel
expense allowance must tie the travel expense allowance to
the auditor's actual, official travel expenses. The dis-
trict judges may require, therefore, that the county auditor
provide some documentation of the present year's travel ex-
penses to project the upcoming year's travel expenses.
Whether the district judges believe the documentation is
necessary is a matter left to their discretion.
We further conclude that the county commissioners court
has no authority to require the auditor to provide documen-
tation supporting the travel expense allowance the auditor
receives under Local Government Code section 152.031(a).
The commissioners court has no power to approve or disap-
prove the district judges' order approved under that
section, and we find no other authority granting them the
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo48morales/lo96-065 . txt
8/22/2002
e
e
right to require the county auditor to justify his or her
travel expense allowance. If, however, the commissioners
court reimburses the county auditor for travel expenses un-
der Local Government Code section 152.035(a), which permits
the commissioners court to reimburse the county auditor for
actual travel expenses, the court may require the auditor to
provide documentation before receiving reimbursement.
[footnote 10]
SUM MAR Y
Under Local Government Code section
152.031(a), a county auditor may not be re-
quired to provide documentation of his or her
official travel expenses to receive a fixed
travel allowance. On the other hand, the dis-
trict judges who appoint the county auditor
and who calculate the auditor's annual salary
and travel expense allowance may require the
county auditor to provide some documentation
of the present year's travel expenses to proj-
ect the upcoming year's travel expenses. In
addition, the county commissioners court has
no authority to require the auditor to provide
documentation justifying the auditor's travel
expense allowance received under Local Govern-
ment Code section 152.031(a).
Yours very truly,
Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General
Opinion Committee
FOOTNOTES
[1] Letter Opinion No. 95-038 (1995) at 4.
[2] See id. at 5 n.4.
[3] Local Gov't Code ~ 152.031(a), (b).
[4] See id. S 152.031(b). A county commissioners court
may exercise only those powers that the state constitution
and statutes confer upon it, either explicitly or
implicitly. Attorney General Opinion V-1162 (1951) at 2
(and sources cited therein); see Attorney General Opinion
MW-473 (1982) at 1 (and sources cited therein) .
[5] Attorney General Opinion H-992 (1977) at 2.
[6] See Local Gov't Code U 152.011, .017(4).
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/l048morales/l096-065 . txt
Page 3 of4
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 4 of 4
[7] Attorney General Opinion H-992 (1977) at 2.
[8] rd.
[9] rd.
[10] Cf. Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984) at 2.
As we pointed out in Letter Opinion No. 95-38, if the county
auditor is provided a travel allowance under Local
Government Code section 152.031(a) and receives
reimbursement from the county commissioners court, "the
total amount of travel allowance . . . [and reimbursement]
may not exceed his or her actual travel expenses." Letter
Opinion No. 95-38 (1995) at 5; cf. Letter Opinion No. 96-28
(1996) at 3-4.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/lo48moralesllo96-065 . txt
8/22/2002
e
It
Page 1 of 4
March 11, 1996
The Honorable Ben W. "Bud" Childers
Fort Bend County Attorney
309 South Fourth Street, Suite 621
Richmond, Texas 77469
Letter Opinion No. L096-028
Re: Whether a commissioners court may
provide for its members gasoline and repairs
to their personal vehicles in addition to a
monthly travel allowance (ID# 36631)
Dear Mr. Childers:
You inquire whether the members of the Fort Bend County Commissioners Court
may provide for themselves gasoline and repairs to their personal vehicles in additi
monthly travel allowance. You included with your request letter a letter from the F
Bend County Auditor, which states as follows:
In setting the salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected
county officers, according to section 152.013, Local Government
Code, the commissioners court set for themselves $500.00 monthly
travel allowance, plus county gasoline and repairs to their personal
automobile at a county vehicle maintenance facility. Repairs include
such items as tires, batteries, shock absorbers, and oil changes.
Section 152.011 of the Local Government Code places on the commissioners
court of a county the duty to "set the amount of the compensation, office and travel
expenses, and all other allowances for county and precinct officers and employees wh
paid wholly from county funds." The commissioners court must set the salary, expens
and other allowances of elected county and precinct officers at a regular meeting of
court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings. Local Gov't Code
~ 152.013 (a) .
Section 152.011 expressly lists "travel expenses" as a type of compensation
commissioners court may provide county officers, including the commissioners. This
office previously has stated that a commissioners court may fix the amount of a trav
expense allowance a county officer will receive, but the commissioners court must ad
to two rules. Attorney General Opinion JM-879 (1988) at 2. First, the amount of th
allowance must be "reasonably related to official county business." Id. at 2-3. S
the amount of the allowance must be "reasonable in relation to expenses actually
incurred or to be incurred." rd. at 3. When a county officer, including a county
commissioner, receives a fixed travel expense allowance, the county auditor may not
premise payment of the allowance on receipt of records documenting the county office
use of the travel allowance. rd. at 2. See generally Attorney General Opinion H-99
(1977) at 2 (discussing statutory predecessor to Local Gov't Code ~ 152.011).
This office also previously has concluded that a county may provide a county
official with gasoline and automotive supplies for the official's personal vehicle u
county business. Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984) at 2. A county officer may
receive only the amount of gasoline or pro rata portion of automotive supplies that
officer actually uses in county business, however. Id. Furthermore, the county aud
may require the county officer to document the use of the gasoline and automotive
supplies and provide an affidavit attesting that the gasoline and a certain portion
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/lo48morales/lo96-028 . txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 2 of4
automotive supplies recompense the county officer for the use of his or her personal
automobile in the performance of official county business. Id.
Attorney General Opinion JM-148 discussed the provision of in-kind
reimbursement as an alternative to a monetary reimbursement or allowance. See id.;
Attorney General opinion MW-121 (1979) at 1 (considering whether county hospital
authority may authorize hospital's superintendent to use hospital credit cards "rath
reimburse superintendent on mileage basis). We have found no precedent, either judi
or from this office, considering whether a county commissioners court may provide it
both in-kind reimbursement and a lump sum allowance for travel expenses. Neverthele
we believe our previous opinions provide guidance.
In our opinion, the total amount of in-kind reimbursement and travel expense
allowance a county commissioner receives must be reasonably related to official coun
business. The amount of in-kind reimbursement may not exceed the amount of gasoline
other fuel used for county business and the amount of wear and tear the commissioner
personal vehicle has suffered in the performance of county business. The county aud
may require the commissioner to document the commissioner's use of gasoline on offic
county business and the amount of wear and tear on the vehicle attributable to trave
official county business. The commissioners should be aware that proving the amount
wear and tear on the vehicle that is attributable to county business will be difficu
Furthermore, the amount of the monetary travel expense allowance must be
reasonable in relation to expenses actually incurred or to be incurred. The commiss
court must take into account, when setting the amount of the travel expense allowanc
that travel expense allowance may not be used to duplicate gasoline expenses and
automotive repairs that the commissioners receive through in-kind reimbursement. Th
county auditor may not require documentation before releasing the travel allowance t
county commissioner.
We question whether a monthly travel allowance of $500 is necessary, assumin
the commissioners receive in-kind reimbursement from the county for travel on offici
county business. We cannot determine the answer to that question, however, because
answer involves the resolution of factual issues. The resolution of fact questions
inappropriate to the opinion process. E.g., Attorney General Opinions DM-98 (1992)
3, H-56 (1973) at 3, M-187 (1968) at 3, 0-2911 (1940) at 2.
Article III, section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution, which you raised in a
this office, is not contrary to this opinion. Article III, section 52(a) forbids th
to authorize a county "to grant public money or thing of value . . . to any individu
office has interpreted article III, section 52(a) to prohibit any grant of public mo
private purposes only; article III, section 52(a) does not prohibit a grant of publi
for public purposes if the political subdivision granting the money places sufficien
controls on the transaction to ensure that the public purpose is carried out. See A
General Opinions JM-1229 (1990) at 3-6 (and sources cited therein), H-357 (1974) at
M-I023 (1971) at 2-7; see also Barrington v. Cokinos, 338 S.W.2d 133, 140 (Tex. 1960
1 GEORGE D. BRADEN, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: AN ANNOTATED
AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 233 (1977); 2 BRADEN, supra, at 676-77.
Article III, section 52 requires
that the grants of public funds--here, a
reimbursement--serve a public purpose.
at 6. If the county commissioners are
the county commissioners court to find, how
travel allowance, as well as in-kind
See Attorney General Opinion JM-1229 (1990)
receiving twice as much reimbursement as the
amount they incur in travel expenses because they receive an allowance to cover the
of fuel and vehicular wear and tear, plus they replenish their fuel tank with county
and have their vehicles repaired at a county vehicle maintenance facility, we questi
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/l048morales/l096-028. txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 3 of4
whether the use of public funds serves a public purpose.
Godley v. Duval County, 361 S.W.2d 629, 630 (Tex. civ. App.--San Antonio
1962, no writ), which you cited in your brief, also is not inconsistent with this op
Godley speaks only to the use of county labor, materials, and equipment for private
purposes. See id. at 630.
SUM MAR Y
The total amount of in-kind reimbursement and travel expense
.allowance a county commissioner receives must be reasonably related
to official county business. The amount of in-kind reimbursement
may not exceed the amount of gasoline or other fuel used for county
business and the amount of wear and tear the commissioner's
personal vehicle has suffered. The county auditor may require the
commissioner to document the commissioner's use of gasoline on
official county business and the amount of wear and tear on the
vehicle attributable to travel for official county business.
Furthermore, the amount of the monetary travel expense
allowance must be reasonable in relation to expenses actually
incurred or to be incurred. The commissioners court must take into
account, when setting the amount of the travel expense allowance,
that travel expense allowance may not be used to duplicate gasoline
expenses and automotive repairs that the commissioners receive
through in-kind reimbursement. The county auditor may not require
documentation before releasing the travel allowance to a county
commissioner.
Yours very truly,
Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General
Opinion Committee
This office previously has determined that, in normal circumstances, travel between
office is not reimbursable, official county business. See Attorney General Opinion
the other hand, this office has concluded that "[t]ravel for the purpose of inspecti
the maintenance" of county roads is reimbursable "to the extent that such activity i
official county business." See Attorney General Opinion JM-879 (1988) at 3.
With respect to travel by members of the commissioners court to "public functions su
dedications, civic ceremonies[,] and county fairs," this office has stated that such
business and reimbursable if "attendance is in the interest of the county." Id. If
function is solely for the personal purposes of the individual official, travel to t
official county business and may not be reimbursed. Id.
No fixed rule delineates exactly what constitutes a "public purpose." See Davis v.
Taylor, 67 S.W.2d 1033, 1034 (Tex. 1934) (quoting 6 MCQUILLEN ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATI
at 292 (2d ed. 1940)) (stating that " [w]hat is a public purpose cannot be answered b
definition further than to state that if an object is beneficial to the inhabitants
the local government it will be considered a public purpose"). Rather, the governin
politi~al subdivision must determine in the first instance whether a particular gran
a legitimate public purpose, and whether the political subdivision has placed suffic
transaction to ensure that the public purpose will be carried out. The governing bo
subject to judicial review. Attorney General Opinion DM-317 (1995) at 3.
(footnote continued)
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/lo48morales/lo96-028. txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 4 of 4
The Honorable Ben W. "Bud" Childers
Page 4 (L096-028)
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo48morales/lo96-028. txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 1 of 4
May 26, 1995
Honorable Delma Rios
Kleberg County Attorney
P.O. Box 1411
Kingsville, Texas 78364
Letter Opinion No. 95-038
Re: Whether, under Local Government
Code section 152.031, the district judge
who appoints the county auditor may
include in the county auditor's salary a set
car allowance '(ID# 31172)
Dear Ms. Rios:
You ask whether section 152.031 of the Local Government Code authorizes a
district judge to include in the county auditor's salary what you describe as a "set
allowance. You explain that the judge of the 105th District Court included a car
allowance of $3,000.00 in the auditor's annual salary for the October 1994 through
September 1996 term of office. We assume the judge of the 105th District Court
appoints the Kleberg County auditor. See Local Gov't Code ~ 84.002(a) (requiring
district judges to appoint county auditor in county with population over 10,000).
Chapter 152 of the Local Government Code pertains to the amount of
compensation, expenses, and allowances county officers and employees receive.
Subchapter B, which includes sections 152.011 through 152.018, relates to the amount
compensation, expenses, and allowances generally applicable to county officers and
employees. County auditors and their assistants are excepted from subchapter B, see
~ 152.017(4); instead, subchapter C, which includes sections 152.031 through 152.035
provides for the compensation and expenses of county auditors and their assistants.
Section 152.031(a) of the Local Government Code, about which you specificall
ask, provides in part as follows:
At a hearing held in accordance with Section 152.905, the
district judges appointing the county auditor shall set, by a majority
vote, the auditor's annual salary as compensation for services and
the auditor's travel expenses and other allowances. . . .
The amount of compensation and allowances a county auditor receives may not exceed
the amount of all compensation and allowances received by the highest paid elected
officer whose salary and allowances are set by the commissioners court, other than t
judge of a county court at law. Id. ~ 152.032(a). The district judge must certify
order setting the auditor's salary to the commissioners court. rd. ~ 152.031(a), (b
Local Government Code section 152.035 specifically relates to reimbursement
a county auditor's travel expenses:
(a) The commissioners court of a county may reimburse the
county auditor for expenses incurred in traveling to and from the
county seat in the auditor's personal automobile to perform official
duties and to attend conferences and seminars relating to the
performance of official duties. However, the commissioners court
may not reimburse the auditor for expenses incurred in traveling
between the auditor's personal residence and county office or for
expenses incurred in any other travel of a personal nature.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo48moralesllo95-03 8. txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 2 of 4
(c) The commissioners court by order shall set the reimburse-
ment at a reasonable rate.
You believe your question requires us to construe the phrase "other allowanc
for purposes of section 152.031(a). You also suggest that sections 152.031 and 152.
conflict because section 152.031 authorizes a district judge to set a county auditor
travel expenses and other allowances while section 152.035, as you interpret it, req
commissioners court to set the reimbursement of the auditor's travel expenses at a
reasonable rate. We will begin to analyze your question by examining the history of
section 152.031(a), its statutory predecessor, V.T.C.S. article 1645, sections 1 and
(repealed by Act of May 1, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 149, ~ 49, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws
707, 1307), and related statutes.
Prior to 1989, sections 152.031 and 152.032 of the Local Government Code and
their statutory predecessors simply required the district judges of a county to "set
annual salary of the auditor" in an amount no greater than the amount the county all
or paid the county tax assessor-collector. See also V.T.C.S. arts. 1645, 1646, repe
Act of May 1, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 149, ~ 49, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 707, 1307.
Section 152.035 or its statutory predecessor has, since the legislature enacted the
statutory predecessor in 1967, see Act of May 17, 1967, 60th Leg., R.S., ch. 361, ~
1967 Tex. Gen. Laws 852, 852-53, authorized a county commissioners court to
reimburse the county auditor for travel expenses.
In 1989 the legislature amended section 152.031(a) to require the district j
who appoint the county auditor to "set. . . the auditor's annual salary as compensa
for services and the auditor's travel expenses and other allowances." See Act of
Feb. 21, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 1, ~ 11(c), 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 1, 13. In 1987
legislature similarly had amended V.T.C.S. article 1645, subsequent to the codificat
and repeal of article 1645. See Act of April 27, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 57, ~~
1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 153, 153-54 (amending article 1645, ~~ 1, 2); Act of
April 30, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 149, ~ 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 707, 928 (codifyi
~ 152.031); see also Gov't Code ~ 311.031(c) (providing that repeal of statute by co
does not affect amendment to the statute by same legislature that enacted code). Th
1989 amendment nonsubstantively codified the 1987 amendment to article 1645. See
Act of Feb. 21, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 1, ~ 11(c), 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 1, 13. W
must interpret a nonsubstantive codification in the same manner the former statute w
interpreted. See Johnson v. City of Fort Worth, 774 S.W.2d 653, 654-55 (Tex. 1989)
(stating that, when conflict exists between former statute and nonsubstantive revisi
former statute controls); Attorney General Opinion JM-1230 (1990) at 8 (quoting
Johnson, 774 S.W.2d at 654-55).
As introduced, the bill that proposed the 1987 amendment required the distri
judges to set the auditor's annual salary "as compensation for services, and office
expenses, travel expenses, and other allowances." This language mirrors the langua
now found in section 152.011 of the Local Government Code, which the legislature has
not substantially modified since it enacted the statutory predecessor to Local Gover
Code section 152.011, V.T.C.S. article 3912k, section 1 in 1971. See Act of May 29,
1971, 62d Leg., R.S., ch. 622, ~ 1, 1971 Tex. Gen. Laws 2019, 2019. Section 152.011
requires the commissioners court generally to "set the amount of the compensation,
office and travel expenses, and all other allowances for county and precinct officer
employees who are paid wholly from county funds."
While this office has not had occasion to construe section 152.031(a) or V.T
article 1645 since the 1987 amendment, the attorney general has interpreted the para
language in section 152.011 and its statutory predecessor, V.T.C.S. article 3912k, s
1. In Attorney General Opinion H-1251 this office indicated that the phrases "offic
expense" and "travel expense" suggest that the phrase "all other allowances"
encompasses only money the officer expends in performing his or her own duties.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo48morales/lo95-03 8. txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 3 of4
Attorney General Opinion H-1251 (1978) at 2. Attorney General Opinion H-1250
opined that "office expense . . . and all other allowances" includes within its scop
items reasonably necessary for the performance of the officer's duties. Attorney Ge
Opinion H-1250 (1978) at 2. In Attorney General Opinion MW-438 this office stated
that the phrase "compensation . . . and all other allowances" comprehends sick leave
benefits, Attorney General Opinion MW-438 (1982) at 2; see also Attorney General
Opinions H-860 (1976) at 1, H-797 (1976) at 1; vacation entitlement, see also Attorn
General Opinion MW-136 (1980) at 2; and entitlement to holidays.
Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984) considered a question similar to your
but in relation to V.T.C.S. article 3912k, section 1. That opinion responded to a q
from the Gregg County auditor inquiring as to whether article 3912k, section 1 permi
a county to provide its county officials with gasoline and routine automotive suppli
their personal automobiles. Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984) at 2. The attor
general concluded that the county may provide such in-kind allowances for personal
vehicles used in county business instead of providing ordinary mileage. Id. The at
general emphasized, however, that "[t]he county officer may receive only the amount
gasoline or pro rata part of automotive supplies actually used in county business."
Attorney General Opinion JM-148 approved in-kind allowances instead of
reimbursement for mileage even though article 3912k, section 1 listed "travel expens
as one component of the amount a county officer may receive from the county. The
opinion appears implicitly to construe "travel expenses" or "any other allowance" to
include the possibility of such in-kind allowances. Significantly, the opinion does
limit a commissioners court to paying travel expenses only by reimbursing an officer
cash for his or her travel expenditures.
Accordingly, we construe section 152.031(a) to authorize a district judge to
include in a county auditor's annual salary any kind of payment, in-kind or monetary
designed to reimburse the auditor for the money he or she expends on travel in an of
capacity. We therefore conclude that, as a matter of law, section 152.031(a) does n
preclude a district judge from including a car allowance in the auditor's annual sal
You describe the car allowance as "set," but we are uncertain whether the county aud
receives one-twelfth of the car allowance each month without having to confirm that
or she has expended that amount traveling on official business, or whether the car
allowance is the total amount that the auditor may claim over the course of the year
amounts the county auditor has expended while traveling on official business. We
caution that the amount of the allowance must be tied to the amount the auditor actu
expends on official county business. Indeed, we believe the county auditor may be
required to document and perhaps provide an affidavit verifying the amount he or she
expended on travel in connection with official business.
The presence of section 152.035, pertaining to reimbursement of an auditor's
travel expenses by a county commissioners court, does not affect our conclusion,
although we note chapter 152, subchapter B, relating to the compensation of county
officers other than the county auditor, does not contain a counterpart to section 15
Section 152.035 authorizes, but does not require, a county commissioners court to
reimburse its county auditor for travel expenses incurred in the performance of the
auditor's official business. Section 152.035(c), which you suggest obligates a coun
commissioners court to reimburse its county auditor for travel expenses, applies onl
commissioners court that chooses to reimburse its county auditor for travel expenses
pursuant to subsection (a). Moreover, section 152.035 does not pertain to the distr
judges setting the salary of the county auditor; it pertains only to the commissione
court, which may reimburse the county auditor his or her travel expenses as a supple
to the salary and any travel allowance set by the district judges. Of course, the t
amount of travel allowance the county auditor receives from the district judges and
county commissioners court may not exceed his or her actual travel expenses.
SUM MAR Y
Section 152.031(a) of the Local Government Code, which
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo48morales/lo95-03 8. txt
8/22/2002
e
e
Page 4 of 4
requires the district judges who appoint the county auditor to set
"the auditor's annual salary as compensation for services and the
auditor's travel expenses and other allowances," authorizes the
district judges to include in the auditor's annual salary any kind of
payment, including a car allowance, designed to reimburse the
auditor for the money he or she expends on travel in an official
capacity. The amount of the allowance must be tied to the amount
the auditor actually expends on official county business, however.
Yours very truly,
Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General
Opinion committee
The 1987 amendment to article 1645 required a county with a population of at least
thousand inhabitants to pay "from the County General Fund an annual salary as compen
services, travel expenses, and other allowances." The amount of the county auditor'
to be fixed by the district judges who appointed the county auditor, was not to exce
to the compensation and allowances received from all sources by the highest paid ele
other than a judge of a statutory county court, whose salary and allowances are set
Court." Act of April 27, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 57, ~ 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 15
The enacted bill omits the requirement that the district judges set the auditor's 0
See Local Gov't Code ~ 152.031(a).
County auditors are excepted from section 152.011. rd. ~ 152.017(4). By requiring
judges, rather than the county commissioners court, to set the salary of the county
maintains independence from the commissioners court. See House Research Organizatio
S.B. 355, 70th Leg. (1987). The county auditor examines the county commissioners' u
rd.
Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984), after approving a county's provision of gas
routine automotive supplies to county officials as recompense for travel expenses pa
suggested that the county auditor "may require documentation and affidavits which wi
satisfaction that the expenses result from county business." Attorney General Opini
2. We do not consider in this opinion who may require such documentation of a count
seeks to justify travel expenses, including a car allowance.
(footnote continued)
Honorable Delma Rios
Page 6
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo48morales/lo95-03 8. txt
8/22/2002
.
e
Page 1 of3
April 26, 1994
Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez
Chair
Committee on Local and Consent Calendars
Texas House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910
Letter Opinion No. 94-043
Re: Whether the San Antonio Housing
Authority may reimburse commissioners
on a per diem basis (ID# 24034)
Dear Representative Rodriguez:
On behalf of the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars, you have requeste
an opinion from this office concerning the reimbursement to housing authority
commissioners for travel expenses. You advise us that the San Antonio Housing
Authority ("SARA") reimburses its commissioners for the following travel expenses:
1. The actual cost of airfare based on a receipt (usually paid
directly by SARA) .
2. The actual cost of lodging based on a receipt from the place of
lodging.
3. Transportation such as by taxi based on itemized claims that
show the date, points of travel, mode of transportation, and
actual cost.
4. Registration fees based on a receipt (usually paid directly by
SARA) .
5. Per diem for meals and incidental expenses.
You further state that SARA uses the same per diem rates as the City of San Antonio,
and that this is the usual practice across the state. You ask whether such reimburs
to commissioners ba.sed on a per diem for meal and incidental expenses incurred in th
discharge of their duties while on official travel status on behalf of the housing a
is in compliance with section 392.035 of the Local Government Code.
Chapter 392 of the Local Government Code governs housing authorities
established by municipalities and counties. Section 392.035 of the code prohibits t
payment of compensation to a commissioner of a housing authority, but provides for
reimbursement for necessary travel expenses. Hence, we begin our analysis by
considering section 392.035 of the code which provides the following:
A commissioner of a housing authority may not receive
compensation for service as a commissioner. A commissioner is
entitled to receive reimbursement for the necessary expense,
including traveling expenses, incurred in the discharge of duties as a
commissioner.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/l048moralesIl094-043 . txt 8122/2002
.
e
Page 2 of3
While this prov~s~on alone does not provide the answer to your inquiry, by extension
believe that it provides authoritative guidance. Prior to its codification, section
(formerly V.T.C.S. art. 1269k, ~ 5) was strictly construed to prohibit payment of a
monthly travel allowance. Housing Authority v. State ex rel. Velasquez, 539 S.W.2d
911 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Attorney General Opini
JM-1204 (1990) at 1.
In Housing Authority, the court reasoned that the right of a public official
reimbursement for necessary expenses must be interpreted strictly and held that "the
Commissioners be reimbursed for their necessary expenses only upon a satisfactory
presentment of each singular expense item." 539 S.W.2d. at 916 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the court stated that any payment not supported by "adequate evidence 0
actual money expended" would be deemed as a gift or compensation, which is prohibite
by law. Id. Based upon the court's reasoning and analysis, we conclude that any
reimbursement to the commissioners for necessary travel expenses must be supported b
"adequate evidence of actual money expended." Your request letter outlines the cur
policy for reimbursement by SABA. However, because it is not clear from the
information you have provided whether the per diem is supported by adequate evidence
of actual money expended, we are unable to determine whether the current
reimbursement policy is in compliance with section 392.035 of the Local Government
Code.
SUM MAR Y
Section 392.035 of the Local Government Code prohibits a
commissioner of a housing authority from receiving compensation
in any form. However, a commissioner may receive reimbursement.
for necessary expenses incurred while travelling in his official
capacity as long as such expenses are supported by adequate
evidence of actual money expended.
Yours very truly,
Toya Cirica Cook
Assistant Attorney General
Opinion committee
LO-
LDB
ID#-24034.TCC
INDEX HEADINGS
COMPENSATION
HOUS ING
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/l048moralesll094-043 . txt
8122/2002
.
e
Page 3 of3
The Seventieth Legislature repealed section 5 of article 1269k, V.T.e.S. Acts 1987
ch. 149, ~ 49. The provision is now codified in the Local Government Code at chapte
392.035. The codification is a nonsubstantive revision. rd. ~ 51.
Neither statute nor case law provides a definition of the term "adequate evidence 0
money expended." However, we understand the term to mean a detailed accounting of t
incurred supported by such evidence as receipts of payment.
Honorable eiro D. Rodriguez Page 2
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/l048morales/l094-043 . txt
8/22/2002
Morales Letter Opinion No. 917
e
Page 1 of3
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
March 8, 1993
Ms. Raymie Kana
Letter Opinion No. 93-17
County Auditor
Re: Payments to spouse of county judge for
expenses incurred in execution of contract
under federal program (ID# 17139)
Colorado County Courthouse, 3rd Floor
Columbus, Texas 78934
Dear Ms. Kana:
You ask whether the county judge's wife may receive reimbursement for lodging, food, and travel to
attend seminars for the non-profit corporation of Colorado County Youth and Family Services, Inc.
through claims submitted to the county. We understand from your letter that her claims are submitted
directly to the commissioners court for approval, and not to the non-profit corporation. You also ask the
complementary question, whether the county is authorized to pay those expenses. We believe that,
provided that these expenditures are incurred and accounted for as required by law, the county judge's
spouse may receive and the county may pay reimbursement for these expenditures.
As described in your letter and accompanying documents, the county has entered a contract with the
Texas Department of Human Services to provide services to truant and at-risk youth in the county and
their families. The county entered the contract because the non-profit corporation that will actually
provide the services was not incorporated. The county judge's spouse helped to develop and continues to
be involved with the program, thus incurring the expenses.
There are two general statutory provisions that regulate a county judge's personal financial dealings with
the county. First, section 81.002 of the Local Government Code requires a county judge or
commissioner to take an oath, prior to taking office, swearing that he or she "will not be interested,
directly or indirectly, in a contract or claim against the county." Local Gov't Code ~ 81.002(a). At one
time, this oath was held to prohibit the wife of a county commissioner from receiving a salary as a
deputy tax assessor-collector on the grounds that community property laws gave the commissioner an
indirect interest in that salary. Attorney General Opinion H-993 (1977). That conclusion was overruled
in Attorney General Opinion MW-437 (1982), which reexamined the legal status of women and
concluded that a county commissioner did not violate the oath of office by virtue of his community
property interest in his spouse's county employment. The conclusion in MW-437 applies equally well to
the reimbursement of the spouse's expenses. Thus, section 81.002 does not prohibit the reimbursement.
The other statutory provision that is relevant to the reimbursement of the spouse's expenses is found in
chapter 171 of the Local Government Code. That chapter generally regulates local government officials'
conflicts of interest and requires those officials to disclose substantial interests in business entities and
abstain from participating in matters which would affect those entities. See Local Gov't Code ~ 171.004;
Attorney General Opinion JM-1090 (1989) at 2. This office has previously noted that chapter 171
reaches only financial interests and only prohibits a local governmental official from participating in a
vote or a decision after disclosing his or her interest. See Attorney General Opinions JM-1060 at 4; JM-
424 (1986).
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/l048morales/l093-017.htm
8/22/2002
Morales Letter Opinion No. 93.7
e
Page 2 of3
Section 171.001 (2) of the Local Government Code defines "business entity" to include a corporation,
which term includes a non-profit corporation. See Attorney General Opinion lM-424. Section 171.002
of the Local Government Code defines "substantial interest in a business entity" to include the interest of
a person related to the official within the first degree by affinity, which includes the official's spouse.
Attorney General Opinion V -785 (1949). Because the legislature has expressly defined the interest of
persons within the stated degree of relationship as an interest of the official, the determination regarding
community property interests in Attorney General Opinion MW-437 has no bearing on the application
of chapter 171 to the reimbursement of these expenses. See Attorney General Opinion lM-1090. This
office is not equipped to make the fact determination of whether or not the reimbursement of the
expenses under consideration here would constitute a "substantial interest in a business entity." That
determination is for the county judge, in the first instance. Ifhe discovers that his wife has such an
interest, he must declare it and abstain from further participation in the matter as required by chapter
171.
SUMMARY
A county judge does not violate the oath of office by virtue of the county's reimbursement of expenses
incurred by the judge's spouse in furtherance of a contract between the county and the Texas Department
of Human Services. If that reimbursement amounts to a "substantial interest in a business entity" under
chapter 171, Local Government Code, the judge must declare the interest and abstain from further
participation in the matter.
Yours very truly,
Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
Opinion Committee
LO-
ID#17139
LDB
INDEX HEADINGS
Conflicts of Interest
Counties
County Funds
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo48morales/l093-017.htm
8/22/2002
Mattox Letter Opinion No. 90-.
e
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
June 19, 1990
Honorable Scott Warren Johnson
County Attorney
Reeves County Courthouse
P. O. Box 749
Pecos, Texas 79772
Letter Opinion No. 90-034
Dear Mr. Johnson:
You ask whether a commissioners court may set a maximum amount of
reimbursable miles for deputy sheriffs.
You advise that deputy sheriffs furnish their own vehicles for official business.
The commissioners court has provided that deputies will receive mileage
expense at a rate of 24 cents per mile for in-county travel, not to exceed $600
per month. You state that this limitation does not apply to the use of their
vehicles in emergency situations that may arise in the discharge of their duties.
Section 152.011 of the Local Government Code provides:
The commissioners court ofa county shall set the amount of the compensation,
office and travel expenses, and all other allowances for county and precinct
officers and employees who are paid wholly from county funds.
Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984) concluded that under article 3912k,
V.T.C.S., now section 152.011, the commissioners court may fix the amount of
travel expense allowed members of the commissioners court.
Attorney General Opinion JM-879 (1989) stated that the commissioners court
may establish the amount of automobile expenses to be allowed county precinct
officials. It was noted that the allowance must be related to official county
business and the amounts must be reasonable in relation to expenses actually
incurred or to be incurred.
Attorney General Opinion JM-879 stated that in the final analysis, "the
allowance must be governed by what amount the commissioners court, in good
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/lo47mattox/lo90-034.htm
Page 1 of2
8/22/2002
Mattox Letter Opinion No. 90-.
e
faith, deems to be necessary for travel reasonably related to county business."
Attorney General Opinion JM-879 at 3. The determination of what is
reasonable in relation to expenses incurred in official business is a factual
determination to be made by the commissioners court.
We conclude that the commissioners court may set an amount to be paid deputy
sheriffs for the use of their own vehicles in the discharge of official business
under the foregoing guidelines.
Very truly yours,
Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General
Opinion Committee
APPROVED:
Sarah W oelk
Chief
Letter Opinion Section
Texas OAG home p~ I Opinions & Open Government
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/lo47mattox./lo90-034.htm
Page 2 of2
8/22/2002
Morales Letter Opinion No. 93'7
e
Page 3 of3
County Officers and Employees
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/l048morales/l093-017.htm
8/22/2002
White Opinion No. MW-93
e
e
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
December 3, 1979
Honorable Rene A. Guerra
Criminal District Attorney Pro Tern
Hidalgo County
Edinburg, Texas 78539
Opinion No. MW-93
Re: Payment by board of trustees of
an independent school district for
expenses incurred by relatives of
board members or other nonboard
persons who attended school board-
related activities.
Dear Mr. Guerra:
You ask whether the trustees of an independent school district may pay expenses
incurred by spouses or other persons who accompany school board members to
board-related activities, even though these persons are not school board
members or employees of the school district. You inform us that school board
members of an independent school district have attended school-related
conventions accompanied by their spouses. The board of trustees has authorized
payment for the actual expenses, including travel, meals, and lodging, incurred
by spouses of board members in attending conventions.
The board's authority to pay expenses incurred by board members in attending
school-related conventions derives from the following provision of the
Education Code:
Local school funds. . . may be used for the purposes enumerated for state and
county funds. . . and for other purposes necessary in the conduct of public
schools to be determined by the board of trustees. . . .
Educ. Code s 20.48(c). In Attorney General Opinion H-133 (1973) this office
considered whether a school board member could be reimbursed for his
expenses in attending a convention of school administrators. He had been
designated a delegate and was to participate in a program concerning matters
important to the school district. The opinion concluded that the school board
http://www.oag.state.tx.us(opinopen/opinions/op46white/mw-093.htm
Page 1 of 4
8/22/2002
White Opinion No. MW -93
e
e
could pay these expenses where it determined that payment was 'necessary in the
conduct of the public schools.' Each determination and the legality ofa particular
expenditure was ultimately for the courts. If the expenditure served only private
ends and did not have a public purpose it would make an unconstitutional grant
of public funds in violation of article III, sections 51 and 52 of the Texas
Constitution. See Attorney General Opinion H-70 (1973).
The school board generally has discretion to determine whether a particular
payment is 'necessary in the conduct of the public schools.' However, in our
opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of persons who
have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and whose connection
with public school matters is based solely on their relationship of blood,
marriage, or frienship with a board member. You have submitted no facts
indicating that the presence of a school board member's spouse, relative or other
associate at a convention will serve school purposes. The presence of these
persons at a convention appears to be purely social. Although a spouse's
presence at a convention may facilitate personal contact among administrators
and thus contribute in some small way to school purposes, we believe the benefit
accruing to the school district is too minimal to sustain the expenditure. Cf.
Warwick v. United States, 236 F. Supp. 761 (E.D. Va. 1964) (deductibility from
federal income tax return ofa wife's travel expenses).
We note that Attorney General Opinion H-I089 (1977) concluded that spouses
of public officials could in some cases receive free transportation on state-owned
aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be provided legally
depended in part on the nature of the office, on the spouse's traditional role, and
the spouse's connection with a particular trip. This opinion must be limited to its
facts, and you have presented no facts and we are aware of none which would
establish a public purpose served by the spouse's attendance at a convention.
You next ask whether school board members who received payments for
expenses incurred by non-members should be required to reimburse the school
district. Where payment is made from public funds under mistake oflaw, the
public body may seek reimbursement. City of Taylor v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61
(Tex. 1945); Cameron County v. Fox, 2 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Comm. App. 1928,
jdgmt adopted). This provides an exception to the general rule that money paid
under a mutual mistake oflaw may not be recovered. City of Taylor v. Hodges,
supra; Gould v. City ofEI Paso, 440 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Civ. App.--EI Paso 1969,
writ refd n.r.e.); Nunn-Warren Pub. Co. v. Hutchinson County, 45 S.W.2d 651
(Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1932, writ refd). Compare County of Galveston v.
Gorham, 49 Tex. 279 (1878); Stegall v. McLennan County, 144 S.W.2d 1111
(Tex. Civ. App.-- Waco 1940, writ dism. jdgmt cor.). Although the court in
Hayward v. City of Corpus Christi, 195 S.W.2d 995 (Tex. Civ. App.--Waco
1946, writ refd n.r.e.) stated in dicta that interest payments made by a city under
mistake of law could not be recovered, its decision actually rested on the ground
that the statute of limitations barred recovery. Thus, the school board has
authority to require reimbursement of travel expenses illegally paid. See also
Educ. Code s 23.26(a) (trustees may sue and be sued).
As a general rule, school trustees have broad powers of control and management
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op46white/mw-093.htm
Page 2 of4
8/22/2002
White Opinion No. MW' -93 e
e
over the school district, and the courts will not interfere unless a clear abuse of
power and discretion appears. Nichols v. Aldine Ind. School Dist., 356 S.W.2d
182 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston 1962, no writ); Kissick v. Garland Ind. School
Dist., 330 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Ciy. App.--Dallas 1959, writ refd n.r.e.). Where the
school board members themselves have received unauthorized travel expenses,
their own self-interest prevents them from impartially deciding to forego
repayment. We believe their usual discretion is significantly limited in this case.
Cf. Penal Code s 39.01 (official misconduct). We believe the board may exercise
reasonable discretion in seeking reimbursement from persons no longer on the
board. In making its decision it can consider such factors as the amount of funds
to be reimbursed, the ease of collection, and the legal and other costs incident to
collection.
SUMMARY
The trustees of an independent school district may not ordinarily pay the travel
expenses of spouses and other persons who accompany school board members to
board-related activities. The board has authority to seek reimbursement for
payments made for such travel expenses.
Very truly yours,
~~
Mark White
Attorney General of Texas
John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General
Ted L. Hartley
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Susan Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
.Texas OAG home p.J!g~ I Op-inions & Op-en Government
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op46white/mw-093.htm
Page 3 of4
8/22/2002
White Opinion No. MW -93 e
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op46white/mw-093.htm
e
Page 4 of 4
8/22/2002
Mattox Opinion No. JM-879 e
e
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
March 31, 1988
Honorable Charles D. Houston
District Attorney
155th Judicial District
One East Main
Bellville, Texas 77418
Opinion No. JM-879
Re: Authority of the county auditor
to require travel documentation
from county commissioners and
related questions (RQ-1328)
Dear Mr. Houston:
You ask the advice of this office relative to the authority of the county auditor
to require travel documentation from members of the commissioners court who
receive fixed monthly travel allowances pursuant to section 152.011 of the
Local Government Code (formerly found in article 3912k, V.T.C.S.).
Additional questions submitted relate to whether the following types of travel
by members of the commissioners court are reimbursable:
1. Travel from residence to courthouse to attend meetings.
2. Travel for the purpose of inspecting roads and overseeing the repair and
maintenance thereof.
3. Travel for the purpose of attending dedications and other civic ceremonies.
4. Travel for the purpose of attending County Fairs and other public
celebration.s.
Section 152.011 ofthe Local Government Code provides:
The commissioners court ofa county shall set the amount of the compensation,
office and travel expenses, and all other allowances for the county and precinct
officers and employees who are paid wholly from county funds.
In Attorney General Opinion H-992 (1977), it was stated that where the
commissioners court had set a fixed amount to be paid county and precinct
officials for travel allowance pursuant to article 3912k (now section 152.011 of
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op47mattoxljm-0879.htm
Page 1 of 4
8/22/2002
Mattox Opinion No. JM-879 e
e
the Local Government Code), the legislature apparently did not intend that the
members of the commissioners court would be required to show that traveling
expenses allowed them had actually been incurred before payment could be
made. However, it was concluded that the allowances must be reasonably
related to expenses actually incurred.
In Attorney General Opinion JM-148 (1984), it was concluded that the
commissioners may fix the amount of travel expenses allowed to the members
of the commissioners court so long as the allowance is reasonably related to
official county business.
The question of whether a commissioners court may expend county travel funds
to oppose issuance by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission of a private club
permit was addressed in Attorney General Opinion JM-350 (1985). Under
section 11.43 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the Alcoholic Beverage
Commission has discretionary authority to grant such permits. Section 11.41 (b)
ofthe code provides that the commission or administrator may give
consideration to a recommendation made in writing by the commissioners court
of the county in which an applicant proposes to conduct his business. While
personal appearances at the hearing were not a prerequisite to consideration by
the commission, the opinion noted that in-person advocacy might prove to be a
more effective method of persuasion. It was concluded that if the
commissioners court deems it to be in the interest of the county to do so, it may
expend county travel funds for opposing an application for a private club.
A careful reading of the statute now codified as section 153.011 of the Local
Government Code, and of the foregoing opinions construing the predecessor
statute, former article 3912k, V.T.C.S., dictates that the commissioners court
may establish the amount of automobile expenses to be allowed county and
precinct officials and that such officials are not required to furnish
documentation to the county auditor before payment of such allowance is made.
However, in setting the amount of travel allowance, the commissioners court is
required to follow certain guidelines. First, the allowance must be reasonably
related to official county business; secondly, the amounts must be reasonable in
relation to expenses actually incurred or to be incurred.
In Attorney General Opinion H-992. it was concluded that travel between home
and office is not official travel subject to reimbursement in normal
circumstances. Exceptional circumstances may dictate that such travel is in the
best interest of the county and falls within the requirement that travel be
reasonably related to county business. Travel for the prupose of inspecting
roads and overseeing the maintenance thereof would be reimbursable to the
extent that such activity is reasonably related to official county business. See
County Road and Bridge Act, article 6702-1, V.T.C.S., for duties of members
ofthe commissioners court in overseeing and maintaining roads.
Whether travel for public functions such as dedications, civic ceremonies and
county fairs by members of the commissioners court is reimbursable must turn
on whether attendance is in the interest of the county or whether it is solely for
the personal purposes of the individual official.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op47mattox/jm-0879.htm
Page 2 of4
8/22/2002
Mattox Opinion No. JM-879
e
e
In the final analysis, the allowance must be governed by what amount the
commissioners court, in good faith, deems to be necessary for travel reasonably
related to county business. Whether attendance at a certain type of activity by a
member of the commissioners court is reasonably related to county business is a
factual determination to be made by the commissioners court, on a case by case
basis.
SUMMARY
The county auditor may not require documentation from members of the
commissioners court who receive fixed monthly travel allowances. Travel from
a residence to the courthouse by a member of the commissioners court for the
purpose of attending meetings is not normally reimbursable. Travel for the
purpose of inspecting roads and overseeing the maintenance thereof is
reimbursable insofar as it is reasonably related to county business. See County
Road and Bridge Act, article 6702-1, V.T.C.S., for duties of commissioners
court in overseeing and maintaining roads. Whether attendance at public
functions such as dedications, civic ceremonies and county fairs is reimbursable
is a factual determination which must be made on a case by case basis by the
commissioners court. Such travel is reimbursable when presence by the
commissioner at the activity has a reasonable relationship to county business.
Amounts must be fixed at a figure reasonably related to expenses actually
incurred.
Very truly yours,
t-l~~
Jim Mattox
Attorney General of Texas
Mary Keller
First Assistant Attorney General
Lou McCreary
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Judge Zollie Steakley
Special Assistant Attorney General
Rick Gilpin
Chairman
Opinion Committee
Prepared by
Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op47mattoxljm-0879.htm
Page 3 of4
8/22/2002
Mattox Opinion No. JM-879 e
e
Texas OAG home nag~ I ORinions & Op-en Government
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op47mattox/jm-0879.htm
Page 4 of 4
8/22/2002
Mattox Opinion No. JM-785 e
e
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
September 14, 1987
Mr. James A. Lynaugh
Interim Director
Texas Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77340
Opinion No. JM 785
Re: Whether employees of the
Department of Corrections are
entitled to administrative leave or
per diem and reimbursement for
travel in certain circumstances
Dear Mr. Lynaugh:
You ask whether certain employees are entitled to "administrative leave," per
diem, and reimbursement for travel. Specifically, you ask whether employees
who are subpoenaed to testify in court are entitled to those benefits.
We will first address your question about "administrative leave." Each
biennium the appropriations act sets out the types of leave to which state
employees are entitled. Under the appropriations act for the 1986-87 biennium,
state employees are entitled to paid sick leave and vacation and to leave with
pay under other specified circumstances. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. V, s
8, at V-36. See also General Appropriations Act, Acts 1987, 70th Leg., 2d C.S.,
ch. 78, art V, s 8, at V-4l (comparable provisions for the 1988-89 biennium).
The appropriations act also provides for "emergency leave":
The administrative head of an agency shall grant an emergency leave to an
employee because of a death in the employee's family. The death of the
employee's spouse, or the employee's or spouse's parents, brothers, sisters,
grandparents, grandchildren and children shall constitute adequate need for
emergency leave. The administrative head of the agency may make a
determinati.on on other reasons for emergency leaves and shall grant an
emergency leave, when in his determination, the employee shows good cause.
Id. at s 8(d). We assume that you mean "emergency leave" by the use of the
term "administrative leave." Cf. id. at s 8(1) (providing for leave without pay,
subject to certain provisions).
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op4 7mattoxljm-0785 .htrn
Page 1 of3
8/22/2002
Mattox Opinion No. JM-785
e
e
You state that it is the department's position that an employee may be granted
paid leave to testify in a court action only if the appearance is in his official
capacity. If an employee is called to testify in his official capacity--in other
words, as a state employee qua state employee--his appearance is part of his
job, and he need not take leave of any sort. See Attorney General Opinions V-
1210 (1951); 0-5803 (1944). Whether a subpoena requiring a state employee to
appear in court in his private capacity would constitute good cause for the
department to grant emergency leave is a question left to the discretion of each
agency.
You also ask whether an employee subpoenaed to testify in court is entitled to a
per diem allowance for the court appearances in question. The appropriations
act provides that per diem reimbursement is for "expenses incurred in official
trave1." Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 980, art. V, s 14, at V-43. Unless the
employee in question is appearing in his capacity as a state employee, he is not
entitled to per diem reimbursement. See also Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch 980, art.
V, s 2(e) (prohibiting payment of per diem to a state employee who receives
witness fees for a court appearance in his official capacity).
Finally, you ask whether an employee is entitled to reimbursement for the
transportation expenses involved in making the court appearances. The
appropriations act provides for reimbursement for "costs of transportation on
official business." Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch 980, art. V, s 13, at V-4l. Again, if
an employee is not called to be a witness in his capacity as a state employee, he
is not entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses.
SUMMARY
A state employee is not entitled to per diem reimbursement or reimbursement
for travel expenses for a subpoenaed court appearance unless the employee
appears in his capacity as a state employee. Whether a subpoena requiring a
state employee to appear in court in his private capacity constitutes good cause
for the emergency leave is a question left to the discretion of each agency.
Very truly yours,
t-l~~
Jim Mattox
Attorney General of Texas
Mary Keller
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Judge Zollie Steakley
Special Assistant Attorney General
Rick Gilpin
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op47mattoxljm-0785.htm
Page 2 of3
8/22/2002
Mattox Opinion No. JM-785 e
e
Chairman
Opinion Committee
Prepared by
Sarah W oelk
Assistant Attorney General
Texas OAG hom.e pa~ I 012inions & 012en Government
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op47rnattoxljrn-0785.htm
Page 3 of3
8/22/2002
White Opinion No. MW-201 e
e
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
July 7, 1980
Honorable Robert Trenchard, Jr.
Winkler County Attorney
Winkler County Courthouse
Kermit, Texas 79745
Opinion No. MW-201
Re: Method of reimbursement to
county auditor for travel expense.
Dear Mr. Trenchard:
You have requested our opinion concerning whether Winkler County may
reimburse the County Auditor for travel expense other than on a reasonable rate
per mile traveled as evidenced by a sworn expense report by the County
Auditor. Reimbursement of the travel expenses of the county of Winkler
County governed by article 1650a, V. T.C.S., which provides:
The commissioners court may reimburse the county auditor for expenses
incurred in traveling to and from the county seat in his personal automobile to
perform his official duties and to attend conferences and seminars relating to
the performance of his official duties. However, the commissioners court may
not reimburse the auditor for expenses incurred in traveling between his
personal residence and county office, or for expenses incurred in any other
travel of a personal nature. The commissioners court by order shall fix the rate
of reimbursement at a reasonable rate. Reimbursement shall be made monthly
from the appropriate county funds on submission of sworn expense reports by
the county auditor.
Expenses of other county officials are governed by article 3912k, V.T.C.S. See
Attorney General Opinion H-992 (1977). However, article 3912k specifically
excludes county auditors from its provisions. Article 1650a has not been
construed by previous court decisions or Attorney General Opinions.
We note that article 1650a was originally enacted by the Regular Session, 60th
Legislature, 1967, and provided that the commissioners court shall fix the rate
of reimbursement, 'not to exceed 10 cents a mile.' Acts 1967, 60th Leg., ch. 361
at 852. In 1975, the act was amended to provide reimbursement 'at a reasonable
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op46white/mw-201.htm
Page 1 of2
8/22/2002
White Opinion No. MW-201
e
e
rate' for the county auditor and his assistant in counties having a population of
1,500,000 or more. The 10 cents a mile limitation was retained for all other
auditors. Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 447 at 1190. In 1979, the act was amended
again, deleting the words 'not to exceed 10 cents a mile' and substituting 'at a
reasonable rate' for all auditors. Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 520 at 1104. The act
has consistently provided that reimbursement shall be made monthly from the
appropriate county funds on submission of sworn expense reports by the county
auditor. Harmonizing the amendment with the act it is apparent that while the
commissioners court may now set a 'reasonable' rate for reimbursement,
payment may only be made on the basis ofmon
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op46white/mw-201.htm
Page 2 of2
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-992
e
e
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
May 17, 1977
The Honorable Walter W. Meek
County Auditor
County of Duval
San Diego, Texas 78384
Opinion No. H-992
Re: Travel allowances for members
of the county commissioners court.
Dear Mr. Meek:
You have requested our opinion as to whether article 3912k, V.T.C.S., removes
all restrictions on the amount a commissioners court may allot to its members as
an automobile allowance, and if that allowance must be related in some way to
the number of miles driven on official businss, whether the mileage between
home and office may be considered. Article 3912k provides in part:
Section 1. Except as otherwise provided by this Act and subject to the
limitations of this Act, the commissioners court of each county shall fix the
amount of compensation, office expense, travel expense, and all other
allowances for county and precinct officials and employees who are paid wholly
from county funds, but in no event shall such salaries be set lower than they
exist at the effective date of this Act.
Sec. 2. (a) The salaries, expenses, and other allowances of elected county and
precinct officers shall be set each year during the regular budget hearing and
adoption proceedings on giving notice as provided by this Act.
Sec. 8. To the extent that any local, special, or general law, including Acts of the
62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971, prescribes the compensation, office
expense, travel expense, or any other allowance for any official or employee
covered by this Act, that law is repealed.
(Emphasis added).
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op45hiI1lh-992.htm
Page 1 of3
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-992
e
e
Article 3912k gives to the commissioners court authority to fix the amount
which shall be received for travel expenses by county and precinct officials,
including the commissioners themselves. No formula is specified for the
calculation of traveling expenses. The legislature therefore apparently did not
intend that members of the commissioners court would be required to show that
traveling expenses allowed them had been actually incurred before payment
could be made. Attorney General Opinions WW-513 (1958); V-1344 (1951).
Thus, we believe the legislature intended, in enacting article 3912k, to authorize
counties to continue the type of lump-sum reimbursement for traveling expenses
previously authorized by the legislature. See V.T.C.S. art. 23500, Acts 1959,
56th Leg., ch. 221 at 502, as amended Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 811 at 2489;
art. 235Op, Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 583 at 1927. Nonetheless, we believe that
the use of the term 'expense' in article 3912k requires that the sum set by the
commissioners as 'travel expense' reflect the expenses actually incurred by
county officials in the conduct of official business. While county officials may
receive a monthly travel allowance without the need to account for every mile
traveled when their duties require traveling from their official stations on a
continuing basis, the sum set as a travel allowance must be premised upon some
basis of fact and reasonable calculation. See Letter Advisory No. 89 (1975).
You have asked whether travel between home and office may be considered as
official mileage subject to compensation under article 3912k. We do not believe
that article 3912k authorizes compensation for such travel. Statutes authorizing
reimbursement of a public official for expenses or services are to be interpreted
strictly. Madden v. Hardy, 50 S.W. 926 (Tex. 1899); Housing Authority of the
City of Harling en v. State ex reI. Velasquez, 539 S.W.2d 911 (Tex. Civ. App.--
Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Allen v. Davis, 333 S.W.2d 441 (Tex.
Civ. App.--Amarillo 1960, no writ).
[U]nless the legislature has expressly and explicitly included in the expenses to
be allowed such officers the cost of travel from their homes to the places where
their regular duties are to be performed, such expenses are not a legitimate
public charge.
Thompson v. Frohmiller, 107 P.2d 375, 376 (Ariz. 1940). See also Austin v.
Barrett, 16 P.2d 12 (Ariz. 1932); State ex reI. Carman v. Sims, 115 S.E.2d 140
(W. Va. 1960); 67 C.J.S. Officers s 91b. Cf. Attorney General Opinion M-873
(1971) (approving reimbursement in emergency situations when the place of
departure and final destination is the employee's home rather than his designated
official headquarters). We do not believe that article 3912k constitutes such an
explicit authorization for reimbursement of travel expenses between home and
office in normal circumstances.
SUMMARY
Article 3912k, V.T.C.S., authorizes a county commissioners court to fix the
amount which shall be received by county and precinct officials, including the
commissioners themselves, as reimbursement for traveling expenses. County
officials may receive a monthly travel allowance without the need to account for
every mile traveled when their duties require travel from their official stations on
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op45hill/h-992.htm
Page 2 of3
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-992
e
e
,
a continuing basis, but the allowance must be reasonably related to expenses
actually incurred. Travel btween home and office is not official travel subject to
reimbursement in normal circumstances.
Very truly yours,
~Lk
John L. Hill
Attorney General of Texas
Approved:
David M. Kendall
First Assistant
C. Robert Heath
Chainnan Opinion Committee
Texas OAG home pa~ I Op-inions & Op-en Government
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op45hil1/h-992.htm
Page 3 of3
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-1089
e
-
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
November 10, 1977
Opinion No. H-I089
Comptroller of Public Accounts
L.BJ. Building
Austin, Texas 78774
Re: Use of aircraft owned or leased
by State agencies.
The Honorable Bob Bullock Dear Mr. Bullock:
You have asked several questions about provisions of article V of the General
Appropriations Act concerning the use of State-owned or leased aircraft. Your
first four questions inquire about flight logs and the information to be contained
in them. However, since the current Appropriations Act does not refer to the
maintenance of airplane flight logs, we will not address those questions. There
are various federal record keeping requirements which apply to aircraft, but your
request is not directed at them. See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. ss 43.9,43.11,61.51 (1977).
Section 53 ofthe current Appropriations Act (Acts 1977, 65th Leg., art. V, sec.
53) provides in part:
Sec. 53. ANNUAL REPORTS AND INVENTORIES. None of the moneys
appropriated in this Act in Articles I, II, III, and to . . . [various agencies
receiving funds in Article IV] may be expended after a period of one hundred
(100) days following the close of the fiscal year, unless there has been filed with
the Governor, the State Auditor, and the Legislative Budget Board an annual
report as of August 31 of the preceding fiscal year by the executive head of each
department or agency specified in this Act, showing the use of appropriated
funds. The annual report shall include the following:
e. A summary of the use made of state owned aircraft or aircraft operated under
long term lease or rental. The summary shall include aircraft description, date
purchased or leased, cost, hours flown, number of flights and destination,
number and names of passengers and the official business purpose of each flight.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op45hil1/h-1089.htm
Page 1 of6
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-1089
tit
e
Acts 1977, 65th Leg., art. V., s 53.
You inquire whether persons other than the agency's employees may be
transported on its airplane while it is in use on official state business, and if so,
what information must be recorded concerning such persons. You inform us that,
when seating space is available, persons such as employees of other State
agencies, federal officials, officials of other states, journalists, spouses of State
officials, and other private persons have been transported on State aircraft.
The flight must be for official business and there must be a business reason for
the presence on it of any of the people you name. See Attorney General
Opinions H-602 (1975); H-184 (1973). Travel regulations in other states permit
non-employees to ride in state vehicles if they are traveling on official business.
Minnesota Transportation Division Rules and Regulations, rule I B; Nevada
State Administrative Manual, s 0635 at 22.
What constitutes official business will depend on the powers and duties of the
agency under consideration, and whether an individual's presence on a State
flight furthers its business purpose will depend upon all the facts and
circumstances of each case. Since you do not inquire about any particular trip,
we cannot make the necessary individual determination. Nor can we give an
exhaustive definition of official business for purposes of your question, since
that would require a survey of the powers and duties of all state officials and
agencies. We can, however, give you some examples from prior opinions of the
official business purpose of travel by various persons, including private citizens,
and thus point out considerations relevant to the determination of particular
cases.
Attorney General Opinion 0-4167 (1941) noted that travel expenses of
University employees could be paid if incurred for State business, and that
'State business' signifies the accomplishment of a governmental function; it
requires that the means and method adopted be reasonably necessary; it implies
that the particular governmental function involved be one directly entrusted to
the institution or department assuming its accomplishment.
Id. at 7. Applying this standard, it approved payment of travel expenses for
public relations purposes, for the purpose of meeting with journalists, contacting
foundation officials and conferring with potential donors.
Other exam.ples of State business justifying the payment of travel expenses
include attendance at a Commission meeting by a Commission m.ember,
Attorney General Opinion H-193 (1974); attendance at a training school by a
State employee at the direction of his agency, Attorney General Opinions WW-
83 (1957); 8-209 (1956); attendance at a convention by a board member at the
direction of his board, Attorney General Opinion C-761 (1966); and attendance
by a Railroad Commission representative at a dedication ceremony sponsored by
the Historical Survey Committee, Attorney General Opinion M-121 (1967). See
also Madden v. Riley, 128 P.2d 602 (Cat. Ct. App. 1942); Louisville and
Jefferson County Board of Health v. Steinfeld, 215 S.W.2d 1011 (Ky. Ct. App.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op45hilllh-l089.htm
Page 2 of6
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-1089
e
e
1948). In Attorney General Opinion H-275 (1974) we concluded that employees
of the Water Quality Board who spoke to private citizen groups at the Board's
request could be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred during these speaking
engagements. We noted that the statute required the Board to encourage private
groups to become involved in water quality control, and that providing
employees for speaking engagements helped carry out this duty. Thus, the
employees were traveling on State business and could be reimbursed in
accordance with travel regulations set out in the Appropriations Act.
The Attorneys General of two other states have articulated standards for the use
of state-owned aircraft by state officials. The Attorney General of Pennsylvania
concluded that the Governor could use state aircraft without reimbursing the
state where the predominent purpose of the flight was official business and
personal business was secondary. Opinion No. 75-20-B. The Attorney General
of Oklahoma determined that the Governor had wide latitude to use state aircraft
for official purposes and he noted that trasporting a Supreme Court Justice to a
hearing on an urgent matter was undoubtedly official business. Opinion No. 76-
201.
The following provision of the Appropriations Act is relevant to your inquiry
about transportation on an agency aircraft of persons employed by other
agencies:
It is the intent of the Legislature that state-owned aircraft be utilized by all
agencies of the state. To determine the extent to which this intent is being met,
agencies operating state-owned aircraft shall file an annual report with the
Legislative Budget Office detailing utilization by other agencies and the methods
used to increase the utilization.
Acts 1977, 65th Leg., art. V, s 18a (4). The inclusion on a flight ofan employee
of another agency carries out the legislative intent expressed in this provision.
The meployee must of course be traveling on official business. See also Attorney
General Opinion 0-2258 (1940) (Liquor Control Board may pay travel expenses
of Assistant Attorneys General assigned to it).
This office has held that the State could pay the travel expenses of unpaid citizen
members of a civil defense committee established under a federal-state contract
which permitted the payment of such expenses from federal funds. Attorney
General Opinion C-440 (1965). See also Attorney General Opinion M- 999
(1971) (Department of Corrections plane used to return prisoners from other
states to serve time in Texas).
We have discovered no prior opinions concerning the transportation of federal
officials or the officials of other states at State expense. However, authority for
provision of such transportation might be found in a contract with the federal
government, a statute providing for intergovernmental cooperation, or a state
benefit which would be realized by the transportation. See, e.g., V.T.C.S. arts.
695c, s 4(4), (12); 4413c-1; 4413(32b); 4419a. Provision of transportation under
such authority would have an official purpose and not constitute the grant of a
benefit to a private citizen. Cf. Attorney General Opinion M-263 (1968) (State
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/opinions/op45hill/h-1089.htm
Page 3 of6
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-1089
e
e
agency may pay salary of employee assigned to federal agency under grant
providing reimbursement).
Nor do any prior opinions address the transportation of journalists at State
expense. We have, however, said that the Legislature could provide rent free
office space in the Capitol to news organizations. Attorney General Opinions H-
920 (1977); H-184 (1973). We determined that the provision of free space to the
media for proper media purposes would not violate article 3, section 51 of the
Constitution but would serve the public purpose of keeping the people informed
about the transaction of public business. In our opinion, an agency properly
engaged in disseminating information to the public, see Attorney General
Opinions H-275 (1974); 0-4167 (1941), might under appropriate circumstances
include journalists on a flight on official business.
We fmd no opinions regarding the provision of free transportation to spouses of
State officials, but we believe that the federal tax. treatment of travel expenses
incurred by the spouses of federal officials provides some helpful analogies.
Such expenses are not deductible unless the spouse's presence serves a business
purpose. Weatherford v. United States, 418 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1969). See
Wilkins v. United States, 348 F. Supp. 1282 (D. Neb. 1972), affd without
opinion, 486 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir. 1973) (travel expenses incurred by wife of
Foreign Service inspector on inspection trip were deductible business expenses),
and S. Rep. No. 768, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 157 (1974) (certain trips on
government aircraft by President's wife were for official purpose, such as
standing in for the President). See also United States v. Disney, 413 F.2d 783
(9th eir. 1969); Warwick v. United States, 236 F. Supp. 761 (B.D. Va. 1964).
Under circumstances similar to those that establish a bona fide business purpose
under federal tax. law, we believe the spouse of a public official engages in
official business so that the provision of free transportation will not constitute
the grant of a benefit to a private person in violation of article 3, section 51. See
also Informal opinion from office of Attorney General of Utah to Director,
Department of Finance, September 12, 1977. The nature and duties of the office,
the traditional role, if any, of the officeholder's spouse, the purpose of a
particular trip and the spouse's connection with that purpose are factors relevant
to the determination that there is an official purpose in a particular case.
When any person is transported on its airplane, section 53e requires that his
name and the official business purpose of the trip be reported. The section does
not require other identifying information, such as title, but the reporting agency
may wish to include such information to help explain the official business
purpose of the flight.
You state that an agency may use an airplane belonging to another agency
without entering into an interagency contract, and inquire which agency should
include information about those flights in its annual report. Since the purpose of
the annual reports required by section 53 is to show the use of appropriated
funds, we believe the agency whose appropriation pays for the use of the plane
should include that use on its annual report. In most cases, the agency that owns
the aircraft would be the proper agency to report use of the plane while it is
http://www.oag.state.tx..us/opinopenlopinions/op45hil1/h-l089.htm
Page 4 of6
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-I089
e
e
being used by another agency.
You finally inquire whether any State agency has authority to promulgate
guidelines concerning the use and operation of State-owned and leased aircraft.
Each agency head is responsible for the proper custody and care of the State
property possessed by his agency. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-6, s 5. The agency head
has considerable discretion as to the use of aircraft owned or leased by his
agency, subject to limitations in statute and the appropriations act. See, e.g.,
Attorney General Opinions S-142 (1954); 0-4167 (1941). See also V.T.C.S.
arts. 6252-15; 6252-19a, s 1.
SUMMARY
Article V, section 53e requires State agencies which rent or lease aircraft to
include in their annual report to the Legislative Budget Board certain
information regarding use of the aircraft, including names of passengers and
official business purpose of each flight. Persons such as employees of another
agency, officials of another state or the federal government, journalists, spouses
of State officials and other private persons may be transported on aircraft
operated by a State agency when their presence on the flight furthers an official
business purpose. Where one agency uses the airplane of another, the agency
whose appropriation pays for use of the airplane should include that use on its
annual report. The agency head has considerable discretion with respect to use of
aircraft owned or leased by his agency.
Very truly yours,
Jt-Lk
John L. Hill
Attorney General of Texas
Approved:
David M. Kendall
First Assistant
C. Robert Heath
Chairman Opinion Committee
Texas OAG home ~ I Opinions & Open Government
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinionsJop45hill/h-l089.htm
Page 5 of6
8/22/2002
Hill Opinion No. H-I089
e
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopenlopinions/op45hill/h-l089.htm.
e
Page 6 of6
8/22/2002
.
"
Litty (Q)f leal W(Q)rrttce
Established 1892
September 11, 2002
Mr. Rod Rothermal, Chairman
2601 S. Broadway #32
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Harry Fuller
9919 North "P" Street
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Nick Barrera
9510 Carlow
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Troy Burmaster
10809 Collingswood
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Alton Porter
P.O. Box 652
La Porte, TX 77572-0652
Ms. Juliet Daniel
401 North 7th Street
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Lindsay Pfeiffer
602 S. Nugent
La Porte, TX 77571
Mr. Douglas Martin
1103 Oakleaf
La Porte, TX 77571
Ms. Paula Bridges
813 Rivercreek
La Porte, TX 77571
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The La Porte City Council, at its regular meeting of September 9,
2002, appointed each of you to a committee to review the City
Council travel expense policy ordinance, and make recommendations
for revisions to such policies. The ordinance provides that
pending the review and revision of Council travel policies, the
City shall not payor reimburse travel expenses for City Council
spouses.
I enclose with this letter copies of the following documents:
1. Ordinance No. 2000-2434, passed by the City Council on
September 25, 2000, which is the current City Council
travel policy ordinance;
2. City Council Resolution No. 81-13, passed by City Council
on June 10, 1981, on Council spousal travel expenses; and
3. Attorney General Opinions LO-90-31 and MW-93, on spousal
travel expenses.
P.O. Box 1115 0 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 0 (281) 471-5020
e
-
Rod Rothermal, Et Al
September 11, 2002
Page 2
Chairman Rod Rothermal will be contacting each of you soon to
discuss with you when you would be available to meet, in order to
schedule an organizational meeting of the committee. Meetings of
the committee will be held in City Council Chambers at City Hall.
On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank each of you
for your agreement to participate in this committee, and make
recommendations to the City Council on this important subject.
By:
C~OF LA PORTE ~
4rma~
Mayor
NLM: sw
Enclosures
cc: City council
Mr. John Joerns, Acting City Manager
Ms. Martha Gillett, City Secretary
AUG-06-2002 TUE 02:52 PM
FAX NO,
p, 02
e
e
4
, .
.'
ORDINANCE ~O. 2000.. ,1f3t
.~ ORD~NANCE ESTABLXSK~NG GUIDEL7NES FOR TRAVEL BY CITY COUNCIL
KEMBERS TO EDUCATXONAL HEETINGS OUTSIDE HARRIS AND GAL~ESTON
cotnnIES; FINDING COKPLIAlfCE WITK THE OPEN HEETIIIGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING AN EFp'ECTXVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED. BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
section 1"
The city Council establishes the following
guidelines r which shall apply to attendance by members of city
council at educational meetings for elected officials, outside
Harris and Galveston Counties:
1. A commitment for attendance should be given to the city
Secretary at the earliest possible- date so that the lowest
possible air fare and other discounts can be obtained. This
will normally be thirty (30) days prior to the event when air
travel is involved. The city secretary shall aggressively
solicit attendance info~ation if deadlines are approaching
and a timely decision is needed.
2. If arrangements are made later, the difference in cost will be
the responsibility of the councilperson. When notification is ......
given and attendance does not occur, the expenses already paid
will be reimbursed to the city by adjusting the monthly check.
"* If there is a good reason for the lack of travel coordination,
the city Council may waive the penalty.
3. No travel or other arrangements will be made for children or
grandchildren unless that cost has been prepaid. .
4. Prior to departure each councilperson will be given a stipend
of $75.00 per day, or more, if authorized by city council, to
cover mea.ls and incidental expenses. Depending on travel
arrangements the per diem will be prorated to match the
departure and return dates. Airport parking is not considered
an inc~dental expense, and must be accounted for with. ao
receipt on the request for reimbursement.
5. Hotel stay and airport parking will be reimbursed only for the
interval fro:m the first night before the opening general
session tD the day following the closing meeting, Additional
time will be approved for attendance at meetings where the
councilperson serves on a committee or is on the program.
6. Taxis may be used between the hotel and the airport if no
hotel transportation is available. Mass transit should be
used for intracity travel when available unless there are time
constraints. Car rental is the responsipility of the
councilperson and will not be reimbursed unless pre-approved
by the city coun~il.
e
FAX NO, e
P. 03
AUG-OB-2002 rUE 02:52 PM
7. Expense accounts must be submitted ~ithin ten (10) days after
returning from a meeting. If the expense report is not
received by the city with~n ten (10) days after completing
travel, the city Manager shall refer the matter to the city
council for handling. . Receipts are mandatory for
reittburse~ent except when otherwise exempted by this policy.
Subsequent trips ,will not be allowed until a request for
reimbu~sement has beensubm~tted for all previous trips.
8. Any exceptions to this policy shall be approved by city
council at a regular ~eeting. .
section 2.
The city council officially finds, d~termines,
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place and subject of this meeting of the city council was
posted at a place convenient to the public at the city Hall of the
city for the 'time required by law preceding, this m~etinq , as
required by the Open Meetings ~aw,' Chapter 551, Texas Government
Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public as required
by law at all ,t:.imes during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted
upon.
The city Council further ratifies, approves and confirms
such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
section 3. This Ordinance shall he effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 'JJ.5!!:day of 5P.f1etT1P.Lf2. ,2000.
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY:~~~ ~
orman L. Malone
Mayor
~
AUG-06-2002 TUE 02:53 PM FAX NO, P. 04
I~ e e
I
....
ATTEST:
'. .
. e
\___: . '-...{I
ft'lflik1J.$T.t:1I
Q{ESOtOT!ON'lfNO: ~
~
Q.7~ .~ yY\.~1lt< o-J..
(.o~ J ~~;t
, ,~
\\J \S\,'
(l:r ~
\
I ..,i
"-
WHEREAS, elected officials'of the City of La Porte from time
to time ar~ required to represent the City at general meetings,
confrences and before other governmental and,non-governmen~al
agencies; And, '
. WHEREAS, said representation furthers the best interest of
the community'either by expressing the interest or position of
the City; or, said representation furthers the best interest of
the community by enhancing their abilities 'to function in their
roles through the exchange of ideas and 'information with other
elected or appointed of~icials.
.
.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counci~ of the
City of La Porte, Texas that the following'policy shall become
effective from' and after its passage:
~~~GR~ The City of La Porte shall reimburse elected
officials for actual expenses.incured when representing the City
of La Porte in their official capac~ty. . ,
@E~~~ Whep elected officials represent the City of
La Porte at functions' that protocol dictates spouse' attendance
and/or functions that have special programs for spouses, the
',City of La Porte shall reimburse the elected official for actual
expense~ in cured related to the sp~uses 'att~ndance.
SECTION THREE: The Mayor and Council shall determine the
functions to which section two shall ".be;'appropriate.
PASSED and APPROVED ~is the /LI:tL, day." of n ..u~ '
1981. -=;;
. ~_-+Jj~. ·
= ~~-
J.J..Meza, Mayor
'\
".. ."
"
............ .
e
e
Page 1
Citation/Title
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. LO-90-31
*5269 Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
Letter Opinion No. LO-90-31
June 1, 1990
Honorable Robert M. Saunders
Chairman
House Environmental Affairs
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910
Dear Mr. Saunders:
You ask whether a city may pay the expenses of spouses of city council
members and city employees who are attending conventions.
In Attorney General Opinion MW-93 (1979) this office considered whether a
school district could pay the expenses of spouses and other persons who
accompanied school board members to board-related activities. The opinion
concluded that article III, sections 51 and 52, of the Texas Constitution would
prohibit such expenditures in most circumstances:
[In] our opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of
persons who have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and
whose connection with public school matters is based solely on their
relationship of blood, marriage, or friendship with a board member. You have
submitted no facts indicating that the presence of a school board member's
spouse, relative or other associate at a convention will serve school
purposes. The presence of these persons at a convention appears to be purely
social. Although a spouse's presence at a convention may facilitate personal
contact among administrators and thus contribute in some small way to school
purposes, we believe the benefit accruing to the school district is too
minimal to sustain the expenditure. Cf. Warwick v. United States, 236 F.
Supp. 761 (E.D. Va. 1964) (deductibility from federal income tax return of a
wife's travel expenses.
We note that Attorney General Opinion H-1089 (1977) concluded that spouses
of public officials could in some cases received free transportation on
state-owned aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be
provided legally depended in part on the nature of the office, on the
spouse's traditional role, and the spouse's connection with a particular
trip. This opinion must be limited to its facts, and you have presented no
facts and we are aware of none which would establish a public purpose served
by the spouse's attendance at a convention.
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
e
e
Page 2
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. LO-90-31
The same conclusions would be applicable to a city. See Tex. Const. art.
III, ~ 51 (applicable to cities, counties, and other political subdivisions).
You also ask whether a city may seek reimbursement for expenses it has paid
in contravention of article III, sections 51 and 52. Where payment is made from
public funds under mistake of law, the public body may seek reimbursement. City
of Taylor v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1945); Cameron County v. Fox, 2 S.W.2d
433 (Tex. Comm. App. 1928, jdgmt adopted). This is an exception to the general
rule that money paid under a mutual mistake of law may not be recovered. City
of Taylor v. Hodges, supra. The city would therefore be authorized to seek
reimbursement. It has discretion, however, whether to do so in a particular
case. Such factors as the amount of funds to be reimbursed, the ease of
collection, and the legal and other costs incident to collection might be
considered. See Attorney General Opinions JM-910 (1988); MW-93 (1979).
Very truly yours,
Sarah Woelk
Chief
Letter Opinion Section
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
e
e
Page 1
Citation/Title
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93
*10733 Office of the Attorney General
state of Texas
Opinion No. MW-93
December 3, 1979
Re: Payment by board of trustees of an independent school district for
expenses incurred by relatives of board members or other nonboard persons who
attended school board-related activities.
Honorable Rene A. Guerra
Criminal District Attorney Pro Tem
Hidalgo County
Edinburg, Texas 78539
Dear Mr. Guerra:
You ask whether the trustees of an independent school district may pay
expenses incurred by spouses or other persons who accompany school board members
to board-related activities, even though these persons are not school board
members or employees of the school district. You inform us that school board
members of an independent school district have attended school-related
conventions accompanied by their spouses. The board of trustees has authorized
payment for the actual expenses, including travel, meals, and lodging, incurred
by spouses of board members in attending conventions.
The board's authority to pay expenses incurred by board members in attending
school-related conventions derives from the following provision of the Education
Code:
Local school funds. . . may be used-for the purposes enumerated for state
and county funds . . . and for other purposes necessary in the conduct of
'public schools to be determined by the board of trustees. ...
Educ. Code ~ 20.48(c). In Attorney General Opinion H-133 (1973) this office
considered whether a school board member could be reimbursed for his expenses in
attending a convention of school administrators. He had been designated a .
delegate and was to participate in a program concerning matters important to the
school district. The opinion concluded that the school board could pay these
expenses where it determined that payment was 'necessary in the conduct of the
public schools.' Each determination and the legality of a particular
expenditure was ultimately for the courts. If the expenditure served only
private ends and did not have a public purpose it would make an unconstitutional
grant of public funds in violation of article III, sections 51 and 52 of the
Texas Constitution. See Attorney General Opinion H-70 (1973).
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
e
e
Page 2
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93
The school board generally has discretion to determine whether a particular
payment is 'necessary in the conduct of the public schools.' However, in our
opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of persons who
have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and whose connection
with public school matters is based solely on their relationship of blood,
marriage, or frienship with a board member. You have submitted no facts
indicating that the presence of a school board member's spouse, relative or
other associate at a convention will serve school purposes. The presence of
these persons at a convention appears to be purely social. Although a spouse's
presence at a convention may facilitate personal contact among administrators
and thus contribute in some small way to school purposes, we believe the benefit
accruing to the school district is too minimal to sustain the expenditure. Cf.
Warwick v. United States, 236 F. Supp. 761 (E.D. Va. 1964) (deductibility from
federal income tax return of a wife's travel expenses).
We note that Attorney General Opinion H-1089 (1977) concluded that spouses of
public officials could in some cases receive free transportation on state-owned
aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be provided
legally depended in part on the nature of the office, on the spouse's
traditional role, and the spouse's connection with a particular trip. This
opinion must be limited to its facts, and you have presented no facts and we are
aware of none which would establish a public purpose served by the spouse's
attendance at a convention.
You next ask whether school board members who received payments for expenses
incurred by non-members should be required to reimburse the school district.
Where payment is made from public funds under mistake of law, the public body
may seek reimbursement. City of Taylor v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1945);
Cameron County v. Fox, 2 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Comm. App. 1928, jdgmt adopted).
This provides an exception to the general rule that money paid under a mutual
mistake of law may not be recovered. City of Taylor v. Hodges, supra; Gould v.
City of El Paso, 440 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Civ. App.--El Paso 1969, writ ref'd
n.r.e.); Nunn-Warren Pub. Co. v. Hutchinson County, 45 S.W.2d 651 (Tex. . Civ.
App.--Amarillo 1932, writ ref'd). Compare County of Galveston v. Gorham, 49
Tex. 279 (1878); Stegall v. McLennan County, 144 S.W.2d 1111 (Tex. Civ. App.--
Waco 1940, writ dism. jdgmt cor.). Although the court in Hayward v. City of
Corpus Christi, 195 S.W.2d 995 (Tex. Civ. App.--Waco 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
stated in dicta that interest payments made by a city under mistake of law could
not be recovered, its decision actually rested on the ground that the statute of
limitations barred recovery. Thus, the school board has authority to require
reimbursement of travel expenses illegally paid. See also Educ. Code ~ 23.26(a)
(trustees may sue and be sued).
*10734 As a general rule, school trustees have broad powers of control and
management over the school district, and the courts will not interfere unless a
clear abuse of power and discretion appears. Nichols v. Aldine Ind. School
Dist., 356 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston 1962, no writ); Kissick v.
Garland Ind. School Dist., 330 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1959, writ
ref'd n.r.e.). Where the school board members themselves have received
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
e
e
Page 3
Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93
unauthorized travel expenses, their own self-interest prevents them from
impartially deciding to forego repayment. We believe their usual discretion is
significantly limited in this case. Cf. Penal Code ~ 39.01 (official
misconduct). We believe the board may exercise reasonable discretion in seeking
reimbursement from persons no longer on the board. In making its decision it
can consider such factors as the amount of funds to be reimbursed, the ease of
collection, and the legal and other costs incident to collection.
SUMMARY
The trustees of an independent school district may not ordinarily pay the
travel expenses of spouses and other persons who accompany school board
members to board-related activities. The board has authority to seek
reimbursement for payments made for such travel expenses.
Very truly yours,
Mark White
Attorney General of Texas
John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General
Ted L. Hartley
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by
Susan Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
C. Robert Heath
Chairman
David B. Brooks
Bob Gammage
Susan Garrison
Rick Gilpin
William G Reid
Bruce Youngblood
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
Tex. Atty. Gen. Qp. MW-93
Lonny Zwiener
e
e
Page 4
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
.
.
September 16, 2002
Martha -
Talked to City of Pasadena. They have no written Council Travel Policies. However, the
lady did say that the city does not pay any spouse's expenses as far as air fare, meals,
registration, etc. They include the spouse on the hotel reservation, but that is all they
cover.
Cherie