Loading...
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