Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-569 Page: 5 of 7
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. C. H. Cavness, page 5 (V-569)
agency of the State Government.
"C. 'Employee' shall mean any re-
gularly appointed officer or employee in
a department of the State who is employ-
ed on a basis or in a position normal y
requiring not less than nine hundred 1900)
hours per year, but shall not include meam-
bers of the State Legislature or any in-
cumbent of an office normally filled by
vote of the people; nor persons on piece-
work basis; nor operators of equipment or
drivers of teams whose wages are includ-
ed in rental rate paid the owners of said
equipment or team; nor any person who is
covered by the Teacher Retirement System
of the State of Texas or any retirement
system supported with Mtate funds other
than the Texas Employees Retirement Sys-
tem." (Emphasis ours)
The Lower Colorado River Authority has been
held to be an agency of the State, L,C,R.A. v,. cCraw,
83 S.W,(2d) 629 (1935) LClR.A. v. Chemical Bank and
Trust Co., 190 S.W.(2d 48 1945). And the employees
of that body politic hsve been held State employees for
certain purposes. However, notwithstanding the broad
definitiona in the Employeeg Retirement System Act of
the vords department and employee, we believe that
construing the Act as a whole, this and similar agencies
and their employees were not intended to be covered by
the Retirement Act for the reasons that the 50th Legis-
lature contemplated only those "employees of the State"
whose duties relate to state-wide activities with no
intervening corporate entity or body between the State
and the employee, In the case of conservation and re-
clamation districts the district is the employer much
the same as counties are the employers of its employees
and have control of their duties. The district con-
trols the working hours of its employees and is respon-
sible for the compensation due its employees.
The following quotation taken from Dilluan v.
State, 125 P. 367, 378, is appropriate in drawing the
distinction between strictly State officers and officers
of political subdivisions created by the State, and is
in line with the distinction we draw here between State
employees within the meaning of the Retirement Act and
employees of the conservation and reclamation districts
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: V-569, text, May 12, 1948; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth265388/m1/5/: accessed March 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.