Case Information
*1 March 21. 1975 Opinion No. H-560 Commissioner
General Land Office Re: Effect of Open Records Austin, Texas Act on fees charged by the
General Land Office.
Dear Commissioner Armstrong:
You have requested our opinion regarding the ,fees which the General Land Office may charge for copies of records, and in particular, the possible conflict between articl~e 3918, V. T. C. S., and section 9 of article 6252-17a. V. T. C. S.,
Article 3918 prescribes a schedule of fees which the Commis- sioner of the General Land Office is authorized and required to charge for various services. These fees are categorized. in the statute as “Filing Fees, ” “Preparation of Certificate of Fact, ” “Certified Pbotostatic Copies, ” ‘!Maps, ” “Maps and Sketches, ” “Spanish Transla- tions, ” and “Patent and Deed of Acquittance Fees. ”
Article 6252-17a, the Open Records Act provides, in section 9:
(a) The cost to any person requesting noncertified photographic reproductions of public records comprised of pages up to legal size shall not be excessive. The State Board of Control shall from time to time determine the actual.cost of standard size reproductions and shall ~periodically publish these cost figures for use by agencies in determin- ing charges to be made pursuant to this Act. *2 (H-560)
(b) Charges made for access to public records corn- prised in any form other than up to standard sized pages or in computer record banks, microfilm’records, or other similar record keeping systems, shall be set upon consultation between the custodian of the records and the State Board of Control, giving due consideration to the expenses involved in providing the public records making every effort to match the charges with the actual cost of providing the records. (Emphasis added)
(c) It shall be the policy of all governmental bodies’to ; provide suitable copies of all public records within a reasonable period of time after the date copies were requested. Every governmental body is hereby instructed to make reasonably efficient use of each:page of public records so as not to cause excessive costs for the resproduction of public records.
(d) ,The charges for copies made in the district clerk’s office and the county clerk’s office shall be as other- . wise provided by law.
. . . . (f) The charges for c cpies made by the various municipal court clerks of the various cities and towns bf this state shall be as otherwise provided by ~ordinance.
You ask whether the fee schedules listed in article 3918 are superseded so that the relevant fees must now be by section 9 of article 6252-17a, set by the State Board of Control.
The Open Records Act neither expressly.repeals nor specifically In the absence of an express declaration, an act alludes to article 3918. should not be regarded as repealed unless repeal can be inferred from the later statute. Burkhart v. Braeos River Harbor Nav. Dist., 42 S. W. 2d 96 (Tex. Civ. App. --Galveston 1931 no writ); Miller v. Calvert, 418 S. W. 2d 869 (Tex. Civ. App. --Austin 1967 no writ). *3 page 3 (H-560)
Initially, we observe that the Open Records Act clearly does not repeal those schedules of article 3918 styled “Filing Fees, ” “Certified Photostatic Copies, ” “Preparation of Certificate of Fact, ” “Spanish Translations, ” and “Patent and Deed of Acquittance Fees, ‘I These services embrace more than providing uncertified copies of, or access to, public records. As to them, clearly, the fee schedules of article 3918 are not superseded by article 6252-17a.
Nor do we believe theremaixiingarticle 3918 schedules, “Maps” and “Maps and Sketches, ” or the “examination of records” provision, were repealed or superseded by article 6252-17a, V. T. C. S. The “cost” provisions of the Open Records Act are of general applicability, designed to guide agencies where no specific statutory guide exists. Article 3918, V. T. C. S. is a specific statute governing the charges to be rnade~ for specific records which were already open to the public In 53 Texas Jurisprudence, prior to the passage of article 6252-17a. Statutes, $110, it is said upon excellent authority:
The enactment of a general law does not ordinarily operate as a,repeal of a particular or special law, by implication, though both relate, to the same subject matter. On the contrary, both statutes are permitted to stand, and the general law is applicable to, all In other cases not embraced by the specific act.
words, the particular act is construed as constituting law. This is a settled an ‘exception to the general rule of construction, based on the presumption that a specific statute evidences the intention of the legis- lature more clearly than a general one, and therefore~ should control.
A special act is repealed by subsequent legisla-~ tion that contains an express repealing clause or that otherwise manifests the intention of the legislature to repeal it. Thus where such a construction is necessary in order to give any meaning to its words, a general act may be construed as repealing more particular and specific provisions of an earlier act.
The Honorable-Bob Armstrong .(H-560)
We think these principles apply to the circumstances you have asked about and that article 3918, V. T. C. S., continues to control the particular matters to which it is addressed. See also 53 Tex. Jur. -- 2d, Statutes $161.
SUMMARY The fee schedule in article 3918, V. T. C. S., for services provided by the General Land Office has not been repealed by section 9 of article 6252-17a,
Very truly yours, Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:
*is tie
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman :
Opinion Committee
lg