The opinion
THEA BRNE
September 12, 1950
Ron. v. c. Marshall Opinion NO. v-1106.
Executive Director
Texas State Soil Re: Availability of funds
Conservation Board granted to a soil conser-
Temple, Texas vation district by H.B.
97, Acts 5lst Leg., R.S.
1949, ch. $0, p. 1000,
for payment of premiums
on surety bonds of the
district's employees and
officers who are entrusted
with funds or property.
Dear Sir:
Your request for an opinion reads in part as fol-
lows:
nWe desire the opinion of your office regard-
ing the legality of payment of bond premiums
by Soil Conservation District Supervisors out
of funds provided in House Bill 97, Acts of
the 51st Legislature, Regular Session 1949.
"We are advised that some district supervisors
have paid bond premiums out of state grants to
the district and other supervisors question
such authority. Soil Conservation Districts
have had no grants of funds other than those
received as provided in House Bill 97.
"It is the feeling of this board that since
House Bill 97 requires that any member of the
board or its employees entrusted with property
or funds be bonded In an amount fixed by the
board, that unless there is some prohibition
elsewhere of which we have no knowledge, that
to provide proper safeguard for state funds
supervisors should use any available funds to
pay for the bond protection required.
"State Warrants, as such, are not Involved here
as House Bill 97 provides that checks drawn on
. . .
Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 2 (~-1106) -.
the depository of the district, signed by the
chairman and secretary of the board, are to be
used in meeting obligations of the district.
“It seems that House Bill 97 neither authorfzes
nor prohibits the payment of required bond
premiums from the funds granted to the dfstrict,
but does require that such bond be procured.”
Soil conservation districts created under the pro-
visions of Article 165a-4, VernonIs civil Statutes, are
political subdivisions of the State, bodies politic and COP-
porate performing governmental functions. Atty. Gen. Op.
v-999 11950). Section 6 of this statute provides for the
election of five (5) supervisors in each district who shall
constitute the governing board of the district; directs the
board to elect from its membership a chairman, vice-chairman,
and secretary; and empmers the board to employ such officers,
agents, and employees, permanent and temporary, as it may re-
quire, and shall determine their qualifications, duties, and
compensation. This section also provfdes:
“The supervisors shall provide for the exe-
cution of surety bonds for all employees and of-
ficers who shall be entrusted with funds OP prop-
erty. n
House Bill 97, Acts 51st Leg., ROS, 1949, chO 540,
p* 1000, grants to the soil conservation districts of this
State the sum of $2,5OO,OOO for each year of the current bfen-
nfum, subject to certain restrictions on the expendfture there-
of. The money so granted and appropriated to such dfstrfcts
was undoubtedly for the purpose of enabling them as polltfeal
subdivisions of the State, bodfes polPtic and corporate, and
as agencies of the State to perform the governmental functions
authorized by Article 165a-4.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the approprfatfon bfll
under consideration provide, respectfvely, as follows:
Sec. 1. “All grants to soil conservatfon
districts shall be made by the State Soil Conser-
vation Board based on the Board’s determination
of equity and need of the distrfct applying for
grant 0n
_-
Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 3 (V-1106)
Sec. 2. "Approval of all grants to soil
conservation districts as provided for in this
Act shall be certified to the State Comptroller
of Public Accounts by the State Soil Conserva-
tion Board. Such certification of approval by
the State Soil Conservation Board presented to
the said Comptroller shall be sufficient auth-
ority for the Comptroller to issue his warrant
against any appropriation made for grants to
soil conservation districts, and shall also be
sufficient authority for the State Treasurer to
honor payment of such warrants."
Sec. 3. "An annual audit of the accounts
of receipts and disbursements together with an
inventory of supplies and equipment of all dis-
tricts receiving grants, as is provided in this
Act, shall be made by the State Auditor and effi-
ciency expert. A maximumfee for the auditing
of the accounts of a district shall be set up by
the State Auditor and efficiency expert bearing
as nearly as possible the actual expense incurred
in making such audits. The expense of the audit
shall be paid by each soil conservation district
involved out of local fw A report of such
audits shall be made available to the Governor
of the State, to the State Soil Conservation Board,
and the Members of the Legislature."
Sec. 4. "The supervisors of soil conserva-
tion districts shall-provide for the execution
of surety bonds for all employees and officers
sec. 6. "Grants to soil conservation dis-
tricts as provided in this Act, when received by
the district, shall be deposited in the name of
the district; such deposit shall be with a State
or National bank or banks. Any withdrawal of such
funds so deposited to the credit of the district
may be withdrawn only on approval of the board of
supervisors of the district. All checks or orders
for such withdrawal shall be signed by the chair-
man and secretary of the board of supervisors of
the district."
Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 4 (v-1106)
We have been informed by the State Comptroller
of Public Accounts that each soil conservation district
whose application for a grant had been approved and certf-
fied to him by the State Soil Conservation Board had been
issued a warrant on the State Treasury for the amount so
certified. We presume the governing board of each such
district has deposited the amount so received in some bank
or banks to its credit in compliance with the provisions
of Section 6.
Before we can answer your question it must first
be determined whether the statute or House Bill 97 makes
the payment of premiums on such surety bonds the responsi-
bility of the districts.
It will be observed that both Section 6 of the
statute and Section 4 of House Bill 97 provfde:
“The supervisors shall provide for the
execution of surety bonds m all employees
and officers who shall be entrusted with funds
or property.” (Emphasis added.)
This language does not provide for the execution
of surety bonds & such employees and officers, but does
provide : “The supervisors shall provfde for the execution
of surety bonds w all employees and officers who shall be
entrusted with funds or property.” (Emphasfs added.) The
usual and ordinary meaning of the verb “provfde” is “to sup-
tz or,,furnlsh.” 34 Words and Phrasea, (Perm. Ed, 1940-j
: . The power to rovide includes the power to purchase.”
Dancv v. Davw 1 is3 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Civ, App. 1944, er-
ror ref.). The p;eposition “for” has several meanings ) fn-
eluding “on account of;N “in favor of;” ‘in behalf of.”
Webster’s New International Dictionary, (2d Ed.) 1938. The
Legislature is presumed to have intended that the words
“provide” and “for” be given their usual and ordinary mean-
lng . Therefore, it has required the governing board of each
soil conservation district to supply or furnish surety bonds
for its employees and officers who shall be entrusted with
funds or property and to pay the premiums thereon,
Having reached the conclusion that Payment of Prem-
iums on surety bonds provided by a district for a certafn
class of Its employees and officers is the responsfbilfty of
the district it becomes necessary to determine whether such
premiums may be paid out of the money granted to the district
by House Bill 97.
Hon. V. C. Marshall - Page 5 (v-1106)
Section 7 of the statute and Subsection F, Section
4 of House Bill 97 each specificallyauthorize the governing
board of a soil conservationdistrict "to accept donations,
gifts, and contributionsIn money . . . from this State or
any of its agencies, and to use or expend such monies. . .
or other contributionsin carrying on its operations."
Section 3 of House Bill 97 specificallyprovides
that each district shall pay out of its local fa the ac-
tual expenses incurred by the State Auditor in making an an-
nual audit of the district. This provision clearly prohibits
a district from paying such expenses out of the money granted
to it by the State. Section 4 of House Bill 97 requires the
governing board of each district to provide surety bonds for
all of its employees and officerswho shall be entrustedwith
funds or property, but does not provide that the premiums on
such bonds shall be paid out of "local funds" of the district.
Since the Legislaturedid not provide in Section 4
that premiums on surety bonds should be paid by each district
out of its local funds, and since we have found no provision
in the statute or in House Bill 97 requiring the payment of
such premiums out of any particular fund, we think it neces-
sarily follows that the money granted to each district by
House Bill 97 may be used for the payment of premiums on such
surety bonds.
SUMUARY
The governing boards of soil conservationdis-
tricts may pay premiums on surety bonds provided by
them "for all employees and officerswho shall be
entrustedwith funds or property" out of funds
granted to the districts by House Bill 97. (Acts
5lst Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 540, pa 1000).
Yours very truly,
APPROVED: PRICE DAMIEL
Attorney General
C.K. Richards
Trial &Appellate Division
B+=-W~--cg
Everett Hutchinson BY
Executive Assistant Bruce W. Bryant
Assistant
Charles D. Mathews
First Assistant
BWB:wb