Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN , GROVER SELLERS ATTOINSY GSNCRAL /+cv &A
Honorable !I!. M. Trimble Firrrt Assistant
State Supt. of Pub& Instruction
Auatirr, Texq Qphli0n NO, O-7346
Ihsr Sir; Re t Uhether tax-supported
junior collegea may in pert, aa followsr
San Antonio Junior Colle
resident students a hi
is”oha;rged the reslden
lem ‘Is baaio In view o
l an or other”‘adminlstretive of- n his re6onrmendatlon, to select ther employees oP, the oolJege, mpensation end manner of pay- nistretive heed, faculty and The Board shall alsO have the pov- or to fix and oollect fees for matriculation, laboratories, library, &ymnssium and tuition.” *2 Honotible T. Il. Tplmblo, page 2
It Ls soen that this provision 86ts no llmltatlon, mln- lmum or naxlmum, on the amount of tuition to be paid. If there Is any such express limitation, then :t must be found elsewhere I, than in this aat,
The 49th Lsglslatwe enttoted a funfor oollege approprls- &ate 1945, 49th Lsgislatum, Ch. 234, 8, B. 67, p. 319, Vomon*s Annotated Civil Btstutes). Seotlon 2 of this Act provfdes, In part, as follovs: . It shall bo mandatory that each
“sea, 2. Institution &icipatfng In the SumIs herein provld- ed shall eolleot from l aah DUDU enrolled. raatrlcula- tfon and other sesslon fees-nit less than-the amounts provided by law and by other St6te-8upDorted instituu6lons of hi&or 1eaminR . , .” (Emphaslr added),
This provlsiom~ls llmltatlon as to mlnlmum fees which may be charged by a junior college ii it is to qualify for partl- oipatlon in Stats funds; houever, no maximum scale of sntrance fees is provlded or prescribed.
It ID notevqrthy thnt thq Aot rerers to the charging of fees “not less than provided by law and by other State-supported This provision is obviously institutions of higher learning.” a referenos to Artloles 2654a, 2654b-1, and 26540, Vsrnon*r An- notated Civil Statutes, regulating the tultlon rates o? State educational Lnstitutlonr 05 aollsglate rank. A junior oollege to be eligible under the appropriation act, therefore, must charge tuition fees not less than those prescribed by these ar- tlales; however, it is nmimlted b7 the a9t aa to the rasrlmum amount whloh map be charged.
It is sign:Ploant that Seation 2 of Art., 26540, vhloh covera non-resident students, provides c higher tuition fee for such students. Although 8 non-resident student Is defined under Art. as one under 21 years age vhose family resides in another State or has resided vlthin this State for less than 12 monthr prior to registratl~ date , or a student of 21 or over who resides out of the State or who has resided vithln this State for less than 12 months prior to registration date. In other words, a non-resldeot student under Art. 26540 is one who resldss
567 ;ionorable T, M. Trimble, page 3
ou~slde this State, vhoreas a non-resident student of a tax-supported junior college la one vho resides outside the, confiner, of the junior college district. !Kherefore, the tVQ are not the samei yet, the prlnaiple Is tiportant and It Is signlflcant that the Legislature provided a hi&or See fpr non-resident student?.
Another factor to be considered Is 34c, 5 of Art, 2815h, vhlch provides as Sollovsr
“sec. 5. The Board of Trustees of Junior Col- lege Dlstrlots shall be governed in the establishment, management and control of the Junior College by the General Lav governing the establlohment, management e.nd oontrol of Independent School Districts insofar as the Genersll Lav is appllcabl4.”
An examination oS independent school district lava re- reals no statute applicable to the question under consideration, Articlea 2678~ 2696, 29048, and 2922L(l) dealing vlth transf’ers, free tuition for scholastics to 21, etc., obviouely do not ap- PlP. Yet, an analogy may be drawn,
In Sloocmb v. Cameron Independent School Mstrict, Tex, 288, 288 3. W. 1064, the court bad before it for oonsldera- tion Art. 2760, R. S., 1911 (nov Art. 2696). Certain students were duly trasrerred from other districts in the oouuty to the The trustees of the Cameron district entered Cameron dlstriot. an order requiring their students to pay certain tultion ahargaa less transfer moncp received. The father of these students re- fused to pay the tultfon and instituted a..n action to restrain the school board from attumptlng to oollect the Mounts alleged to be due. The Supreme Cowt statedr
“It is our v,lov that the Leglslsture, in enaot- ing this aztlole, did not intend to require any lnde- pendsnt district ‘In t&is state to educste 8 scholastic free OS charl;e any longer than the funds transferred with such scholastic vould pay suah pupll~s proportion- ate part of the expense of opeFatlng the schools of In other vorda, as long as the state such district.
agportlorrment will operate the schools the lnde- pendent dir trlot, the transfer pupfl, vhose state ap- yy:;;ment Is also transferred, is not required to pap vhen tbe schools of the independent dis- But, trLct &at continue their term vlth money raised by local taxes levied upon the property within such *4 Honorable T. M. Trlmble, page
district, then the transfer pupil, a non-resident of such district, must pay a reaaonahle tuition.’
And ln the ~880 of Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tsx. 351,
40 8. W, (2d) 20, it was stated by the court:
“For more than fifty years statutes have been in eff80t perml.ttlng transfers Srom on8 sohool dis- trlot to another, and some consideration must be gtwn to the oonstructlon of th* Constitution vhich the anaot- ment of these statute8 lmpliear Since the ConstitutZon does not permit the taxation OS the people OS a school district for the suppcrt J!’ that dlstrlot, exoept upon a vote of the people of the district, it Is not debat- able that the Legislature cannot compel one bistriot to use its Funds and pFOpCti’ti88 for the education of scho- ~a~lcsE~;~8mzAher district, without just oompsnsa-
In vlev of the long operation oi’ the tram& statu)tes, ve bellevb that where a school dia- trlct has facllitles and teachers in 8xcess of those necessary for Its ovn scholastlos, the state has the power to require it to accept transf’ers frcen another district, but only upon the payment Of reasonable com- pensation therefor. l *e*
See also Ruck v. Publio Free Schools of the City of Austin, 290 S. W, 1.1183 Xuse v. McKimep Indapendsnt Sohool District, S.W. (2d) 780~ Opfnions go, O-2177 snd I?o, o-6333.
It IS seen, therefore, that payment of masonable cots- pensatlon to a school district is necessary upon the trensfer of a non-resideat soholastio to that district, 3ection 7 of Art.
2g15h authorices a junior college distrlot to issue bonds for the construction, etc., of school buildQ@s and to levy a tax to pay the same, and to levy taxes fop the support and maintenance or The llmlt8tion on the amount of taxes is the junior oollege.
twenty (20) cents “on the One Hundred Dollars of property valua- tion within said Dibtrict.
. .* It vould certalniy be reasonable for non-resident scholas- tics to psy a higher tuition charge than resident scholastics, for othervise a buden vould be imposed upon the taxpayers of the dls- Love V* city of Dallas, supra. trict.
Honorable T. #.. Trirnble, 3wge 5 that the Iollovlslg 1s the
You are, ther8for0, advised op5.nion .of this dopcrrtmentr
1. A junior c911egs organized under Article 2815h is authorimd to fix reasonable tuition its studonte, fees for and ffx the fee for non-realdent students at a highor rate than thaf fixed lCor Feoldent pupils,
2. In no event my the rates in dlstrlots reoeLvlng state aid (8, 8. 67, supra) be leso than *tiAe amounts provided by lam md bJ other Stat+8upported l.nstltutions of higher learn- ing,’
3. As to vhat would constitute a masonable tuition fee both for resldeataand non-residents is a matter for the sound dls- the junior oollege district. cr8tFon of the boerd oi hurters Several element8 enter into suoh detenuinatlon, Love v. City of Dallas, SUpI%.
4. It is OUP opinion that a reasonable tuition rate to be charged a non-resident 8tUdent by junior oollege recelvlng stste aLd would be one vhbh is cuffiolent to oorspefisate the ool- lege to? the education OS suchmn-resident, less state aid recelv- ed for such student.
We are enclosing for your 8xaminatlon coples of Opinions Ko. O-5891 and No, o-6957 vhich deal vith students who are OX- servicemen.
very truly yours ATTORIVEY 0BKHRA.L OF TEXA3 Ks/.TCP aolo8ures-2