The opinion
December 15, 1961
Hon. William J. Burke Opinion No. WW-1224
Executive Director
State Board of Control Re: Whether the removal
Austin, Texas of a portion of a
non-load bearing
wall for the purpose
of installing a door
and appropriate hard-
ware from which the
use and benefit would
be an improvement in
communications and
efficiency of the
offices in question
is prohibited by
Section 39 of Article
V, Senate Bill 1, 57th
Legislature and related
Dear Mr. Burke: question.
You have requested an opinion of this office on
the following two questions:
(1) Is the removal of a portion of a
anon-load bearing wall for the
. purpose
_ of in-
stalling a aoor anu appropriate narciware
from which the use and benefit would be
an improvement in communications and efficiency
of the offices in question prohibited by the
language of Section 39 of Article V of the
General Appropriations Bill?
(2) Is the Board of Control prohibited
from installing necessary hand rails on the
outside steps required for the safety of
occupants and personnel employed by the State
in the State Office Building. Supreme Court
Building, the Archives and Library Building,
and the Insurance Building when such hand
rails and/or other related safety appliances
were inadvertantly overlooked in the cons-
truction of the buildings?
The answer to your questions depend on an
interpretation of certain portions of the GenLral
Honorable William J. Burke, page 2 (WW-1224)
Appropriations Bill, Senate Bill 1, Acts of the 57th
Legislature, First Called Session, 1961, which will here-
inafter be referred to as the "Appropriations Bill."
Section 39 of Article V of said bill reads as follows:
"BUILDING ALTERATIONS PROHIBITED.
None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be expended for removing walls, partitions
or any other permanent part of the first and
second state office buildings, the Supreme
Court building, the Archives and Insurance
buildings except for such renovations that
may be necessary for new offices or departments
moving into such buildings, unless otherwise
authorized and provided for elesewhere in
this Act,"
The appropriations to the Board of Control are
listed in Article III of the Appropriations Bill and in-
clude in Item 12 thereof, an amount for repairs and im-
provements to the Capitol, other State buildings, grounds,
and properties in Austin, including equipment, materials
and labor ($42,500 for the year ending August 31, 1962,
and $60,000 for the year ending August 31, 1963). Following
the appropriation to the Board of Control in the Appropriations
Bill, the following language is used which we quote in part:
"It is the intent of the Fifty-seventh
Legislature that the appropriations made in
Item 12 above shall be expended by the Board
of Control for accomplishing the repairs and
improvements listed below; such listing, how-
ever, is for Informational purposes and shall
not be construed as limiting the Board of Control
to either the estimated amounts or to the listed
items if unexpended balances permit other repairs
and improvements deemed necessary and practical
by the Board of Control.
"Informational sublisting of Item 12 above:
II
. . .' (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear that the Board of Control is specifically
given the authority to make needed repairs and improvements
to all State buildings under Articles 670 and 673, Vernon's
Civil Statutes, if there are appropriated funds available
for that purpose. (See Attorney General's Opinion WW-259
(19571.)
. .
Honorable William J. Burke, page 3 (WW-1224)
Your first inquiry deals with whether a portion
of a non-load bearing wall can be removed for the purposes
of installing a doorway, etc., therein. You have supplied
the additional information to this office that there will
be a sufficient unexpended appropriation balance to cover
the project which you inquire about. In addition, you
have pointed out that such a doorway installation would
enhance the efficiency and communications of the office
involved to a large extent.
"We recognize that the wall, as constructed
at the time the building was erected and/or com-
pleted, is a seperation wall, that it is not a
load bearing wall and the installation of the
door would in no way effect the efficiency and/
or strength of the building."
We are of the opinion that your first question
should be answered in the negative. Section 39 of Article
V of the Appropriations Bill prohibits the expending of
appropriated funds for removing walls, partitions or any
other permanent parts of the named buildings unless other-
wise authorized and provided for in the Act. The portion
of the Act following Item 12 of Article III under Board
of Control of the Appropriations Bill quoted above authorizes
the Board to use any unexpended balances under Item 12 to
make such other repairs or improvements deemed necessary
and practical by the Board. We take the position that
the installation of this door, from the information which
you supplied, falls within the meaning of ltotherrepairs
or improvements deemed practical by the Board," and
since you state there are available unexpended funds under
said Item 12, it appears to be within the perogative of the
Board of Control to effectuate this improvement.
Further, Section 39 of Article V of the Appropriation
Bill has reference to removing walls, partitions and other
permanent parts of the buildings. In the strict technical
sense, it appears that the addition of this doorway would
not fall within this particular prohibition since it would
not be necessary to remove the entire wall, and since you
state that the installation of the door would in no way
effect the efficiency or strength of the building. We
believe this interpretation to be in line with the well-
established rule that in statutory interpretation, an Act
should be given a fair, rational, reasonable, and sensible
construction in accordant- with its language and subject
matter and with a view of accomplishing the legislative intent
Honorable William J. Burke, page 4 (WW-1224)
and purpose. McKinney v. City of Abilene, 250 S.W.22 224
(Civ.App. 1952‘). We feel that any other interpretation would
lead to an illogical and impractical conclusion.
In answer to your second inquiry, we feel the above
reasoning applies with equal force, and that it should also
be answered negatively, That is, it is our opinion that if
the Board of Control finds it necessary and practical to
add the named hand rails and safety devices, and if unexpended
balances exist under Item 12 of Article III under the Board
of Control of the Appropriations Bill, the Board has the
perogative to make such additions. Hand rails and safety
devices are certainly not logically within the meaning of
"removing of walls, partitions or any other permanent part"
of the named buildings under Section 39 of Article V of
the Appropriations Bill, yet ,are logically "other repairs
and improvements"funder the Board of Control's appropriation,
Item 12 of Article III.
SUMMARY
(1) The removal by the Board of Control
of a portion of a non-load bearing wall for
the purpose of installing a door from which
use and benefit would be an improvenent in
communications and efficiency is not prohibited
by Section 39 of Article V of the General
Appropriations Bill.
(2) The Board of Control is not prohibited
from installing the necessary hand rails and
safety devices on the outside steps for the
safety of occupants and personnel employed by
the State in the named State buildings.
Very truly yours,
WILL WILSON
A torney Gene-ralof Texas
ib
EBS:dhs:kh
Pat Bailey
Assistant
Honoralbe William J. Burke, page 5 (WW-1224)
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Riley Eugene Fletcher
Elmer McVey
John Leonarz
Vernon Teofan
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.