Case Information

*1 The Attornesy General of Texas June 19, 1986 JIM MAlTOX

Attorney General Eonorable Allen R>ss Hightower Opinion No. JM-504

Supreme Court Building P. 0. BOX 12548 Chairman Austin. TX. 78711. 2548 Law Enforcement Cnnmittee Re: Whether section 16.02(e) of 512/4752501 Texas Rouse of Representatives the Education Code, which autho- Telex 9101874-1387 P. 0. Box 2910 rises a school district to re- Telecopier 51214750285 Austin, Texas 73769 ceive state funds in accordance with maximum price differential 714 Jackson, Suite 700 index, is applicable beyond the Dallas. TX. 75M24508 1984-85 academic year 214l742.6944 Dear Representative Hightower: 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 El Paso. TX. 759052793

You ask the op~inion of this office as to whether section 16.102(e)

915633-3484 of the Education Code is applicable after the 1984-85 school year.

Section 16.102(e) authorizes a school district that meets specified, MO1 Texas, Suite 700 criteria to receLve state funds in accordance with a maximum price uston. TX. 77002.3111 differential index [PDI]. We conclude that the provisions of section flY223-5888 16.102(e) are intended to apply only to the 1984-85 school year. Section 16.102(e) was enacted into the Education Code in 1984 by

808 Broadway, Suite 312 House Bill No. 72, Sixty-eighth Legislature, 2nd Called Session, as Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 806/747-5238 part of the chapter providing for the Foundation School Program. Section 16.102 established a price differential adjustment of the basic allotment jior each school district. Subsection (a) of section 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B 16.102 provides th.at McAllen, TX. 75501-1885 5W882-4547

(a) 'The basic allotment for each district is adjusted by multiplying the amount of the basic MO Main Plaza, Sulle 400 allotment by an. index factor that reflects the San Antonlo. TX. 782052797 geographic variation in resource costs due to 512l2254191 factors 'beyond the control of the school district.

An Equal OpportunityI Subsection (b) scpplied a formula for adjust&g each district's basic Affirmative Action Empbyer allotment, a forwla that was to be used in each school year until a

different formula, was adopted by the State Board of Education under subchapter E of #chapter 16. The price differential index is one element of that formula. Subsection (c) established a formula for calculating the PI11 for each school year until a different PDI was adopted by the !;tate Board of Education under subchapter E. Sub- section (d) contains additional criteria for the PDI based on the ranking of schoo:l districts in the order of index values determined P under subsection 1:~) of section 16.102. It relates .only to the PDI

determined under subsection (c). Subsection (e) reads as follows: *2 Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 2 (JM-504)

(e) Notwithstanding other provisions of this section a school district is entitled to the maximum PDI if located in a county in which the number of full-t,lme state employees at pay grade 10-14, plus the number of public senior college or university faculty at the rank of instructor or a higher rank, employed within the county as of May 31, 1984, exceeds 125 percent of the number of nonfederally funded teachers employed in that county as of that date.

Subchapter C is com~~ased of sections 16.101-16.104 and sub- chapter E consists of sectLons 16.176-16.180. Section 16.179 directs the State Board of Education , not later than the 30th day before the 1st day of each regular se!,c;ion of the legislature, to adopt a PDI to be used in adjusting the i.llotment of state funds for the following biennium. Accordingly, th, PDI for use during the 1985-87 biennium was adopted by the board prior to the beginning of the Sixty-ninth Session in 1985. It is the "different price differential index adopted under subchapter E" which is referred to in section 16.102(c).

"The price different:ial index is designed to reflect the geographic variation in I'esource cost due to factors beyond the control of school distr:icts." SM. 16.176. Section 16.178 establishes an advisory csnomittee appointed by the State Board of Education to advise the board in the development of the PDI. Section 16.177 requires the comIltroller of public accounts to collect biennially, and report to the State Board of Education and the price index advisory committee, price information necessary to the development of the PDI based on an econometric model that considers the effect of school distl,ict characteristics on prices paid in the school district for goods and services.

No inflexible rule can be announced for the construction of statutes. However, the dominant consideration in construing statutes is the intention of the legislature. That intention is derived from a aeneral review of an entire! enactment and. when ascertained. shall be given effect to attain the object and purpose of the legislature. see City of Houston v. Morgan Guaranty International Bank, 666 S.W.2d 524.

529 (Tex. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Subchapters C and E provide for the calculation and adoption of the PDI. When their provisions are read together, it appears that the legislature intended the determination of the PDI to be governed by section 16.102 of subchaptcz C only until, beginning with the 1985-87 biennium, the State Board o:E Education began the adoption of the PDI for each biennium under subchapter E. Thus 516.102(b) provides: "For each school year until a different formula is adopted under Sub chapter E . . ." the commiz~ioner shall follow this section. Similar language is in 516.102(c). Subsection (d) of section 16.102 exuresslv is iim?ted to the ranking csf school disiricts in the order of inde; values determined under subsection (c) of section 16.102. Subsection (e) states that, notwithstanding other provisions of section 16.102, a *3 Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 3 (~~-504)

school district meeting cert:ain criteria on May 31, 1984, is entitled to the maximum PDI. Thir; language indicates that the legislature thereby intended to make an exception to the calculation of the PDI that was calculated under section 16.102, which itself was intended to be temporary.

Subchapter E prescribes! procedures for the ongoing collection of information and data to be used for the development of a PDI for each biennium by the State Boar,d of Education with the advice and recom- mendation of the advisory committee. By subchapter E, the legislature provided that the PDI for each biennium is based on changing factors and is not determined permanently on the basis of criteria and conditions that exist at a certain point in time. It is our opinion that the legislature inter& section 16.102(e) to be part of the calculation of the PDI only until the State Board of Education began its biennial adoption of the PDI as provided by sections 16.176-16.180 of subchapter E.

We conclude that the maximum PDI which is authorized for certain school districts by section 16.102(e) is not applicable after the 1984-85 school year.

SUMMARY Section 16.102(e) of the Education Code, authorizing certs:ln school districts to receive state funds in accordance with a maximum price differential ind,ex, is not applicable after the 1984-85 school year.

Very truly yours .

J-/k JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACK HIGHTOWER

First Assistant Attorney Gczneral

MARY KELLER

Executive Assistant Attornc:y General

ROBERT GRAY

Special Assistant Attorney G#eneral

RICK GILPIN

Chairman, Opinion Committee!

Prepared by Nancy Sutton

Assistant Attorney General