Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas March 15, 1978 Opinion No. H-1136
County Attorney for Hill County Re: Construction of section
Hillsboro, Texas 76645 17.99, Texas Education Code.
Dear Mr. Jones:
You inquire whether section 17.99 of the Texas Education Code requires the of rural high school districts as independent school Section 17.99, which was enacted in 1975 as one section of House Bill 226, reads as follows:
On September 1, 1978, all common school districts in a county and in counties with no common rural high school districts, or indepen- dent districts with less than one hundred fifty flSO> ADA that do not support county school administration from ad valorem tax revenue generated pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18 of this code. shall be reclassified school districts by the Central Education Agency, and thereafter the districts shall be governed by provisions of law applicable independent school districts. Members ~of the govern- ing boards of a common school district reclassified as an independent school distrmt shall continue to serve as trustees of district until their respective terms of office expire. Each district shall continue to be governed by the same number of trustees elected the same terms of .office in effect immediately preceding the district’s reclassification.
@l17phasis added). 8ducation Code S 17.99; Acts 1975, 64th Leg.,.ch. 478, at After studymg House B111 226 with particular attention the language, we have concluded that section 17.99 does not require the reclassification of any school districts.
House Bill 226 as introduced would have terminated State funding for all county school superintendents, leaving the county and school districts *2 - Page 2 (R-1136 ) option of supporting county school administration. Its six sections, enacted with amendments as sections 17.94 through 17.99 of the Education Code, provided for the abolition of any county school administration that was not funded locally. Section 17.99 in the original version of the bill reclassified as independent school districts all common school districts located in a county that chose not to support county school administration. However, the Senate amended sections 17.94, 17.95, and 17.99 by adding language. The bill as enacted applied only to “counties with no common rural high .school districts, or independent districts with less than one hundred fifty (150) ADA.” See Attorney General Opinion H-1103 (1977).
The Senate Education Committee, which amended section 17.94, discussed this change at a meeting on April 16, 1975. Tape recording of Senate Education Committee, filed in Senate Staff Services Office. It was explained that if a county had one independent school district with less than one hundred fifty average daily attendance, the office of the county superintendent would not be abolished. If the county had one common school district, the office would not be abolished. Thus, the discussion reflected a decision not to end State funding for a county with even one of the enumerated districts.
The amending language was added to sections 17.95 and 17.99 on the Senate floor. Daily Senate Journal, 64th Leg., R.S., 1975, at 938. Its addition to section 17.95 merely conformed it to section 17.94. The addition of amendment section 17.99, however, rendered that provision very difficult to interpret. As amended and enacted, section 17.99 applies to “4 common school districts located in a county and counties with no common sctiool districts. . . .ll (Emphasis added). This description is self-contrad%tory, and no school distri~ct fits it. The provision therefore applies to no school districts, with the effect that no common school districts will be reclassified school districts pursuant its provisions.
This result, however, is consistent with the apparent legislative purpose expressed during the bill’s consideration. The reclassification of common school as independent would have prepared them loss of county administrative services by enabling them to perform those services themselves. Compare Education Code SS 22.08 - 22.10 with 23.01 - 23.31. Since the bill as enacted did not withdraw State funding for county school administration in counties with even one common school district, there was no need to increase the powers of those districts. Thus, our conclusion that section 17.99 has no effect actually furthers the legislative intent reflected in House Bill 226 as a whole.
We are aware of a construction that would give section 17.99 some meaning. It could be interpreted as applicable to common school districts in a county having no school district, whether common, rural, or independent, with less than one hundred fifty average daily attendnnce. Rowever, the legislative history of the bill and other provisions of the Education Code show that the independent school
P. 4629 *3 - Page 3 (H-1136) district with less than one hundred fifty scholastics belongs in a discrete class of school districts. Educ. Code S 23.02 (independent school district having fewer than one hundred fifty scholastics); S 22.01 (common school district); SS 25.01, 25.02 (rural high school district). The limitation of one hundred fifty students does not apply to the common and rural districts. We decline to edopt a construction which is contrarv to the legislative intent ascertainable from the bill and the Education Code taken as a whole. See State v. School Trustees of Shelby County, 239 S.W.2d 777 (Tex. 1951).
SUMMARY Section 17.99 of the Education Code does not require as independent of any school Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:
DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
jst