Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )

The Attorney General of Texas
Cctober 25, 1985
JIM MAlTOX
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Honorable Wilhelmina Delco Opinion No. JM-370
P. 0. Box 12548 ahainnan
Austl”, TX. 78711.2545 Higher Education Cornittee ue: Interpretation of "teaching
5121475-2501 Texas House of Representatives assistant" and "research assistant"
Telex 910/874-1357
Telecopier 51214750255
P. 0. Box 2910 in section 54.063 of the Education
Austin, Texas 7876'9 Code
714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dear Representative :Delco:
Dallas, TX. 752024508
21417428944
You requested an interpretation of section 54.063 of the Texas
Education Code as it was renumbered and amended by Eouse Bill No. 1147
4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 of the Sixty-ninth Legislature. Section 54.063 waives the payment of
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 nonresident tuition for certain persons who are not residents of
915/53534u Texas.
/-
,1 Texas. Suite 700
Prior to the Sixty-ninth Legislature, section 54.051(o) of the
Houston, TX. 77002-3111 Texas Education Code waived nonresident tuition for a teaching assis-
713/223-5888 tant, research assl.stant,or other student employee of an institution
of higher education, along with his spouse and children, if the
student employee w,w employed at least one-half time in a position
606 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479
that related to his degree program. House Bill No. 1147 restricted
SW747-5238 that waiver to resl?archassistants and teaching assistants, deleting
from the waiver "'other student employees." Section 54.063 now
provides that:
4309 N. Tenth, Suite B
McAllen, TX. 78501-1885
5121682.4547
A teaching assistant or research assistant of any
institutio:nof higher education and the spouse and
children of such a teaching assistant or research
200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 assistant are entitled to register in a state
San Antonio, TX. 782052797
institution of higher education by paying the
51212254191
tuition fees and other fees or charges required
for Texas residents under Section 54.051 of this
An Equal OpportunitYI code, without regard to the length of time the
Affirmative Action Employer assistant has resided in Texas, if the assistant
is employed at least one-half time in a teaching
or researc:h assistant position which relates to
the assil;tant's degree program under rules and
regulations established by the employer
institution.
The issue befsxce us is the meaning of "teaching assistants or
research assistants" and whether those terms, as used by the
legislature in sect.ion54.063, include only students whose jobs have
p. 1696
Eonorable Wilhelmina Delco -'Page 2 (JM-370)
the specific title of "teaching assistant" or "research assistant."
We conclude that those terms are not intended to indicate titles of
positions but are descriptive of the functions of certain university
employees who are entitled 1:othe waiver.
The dominant considel:ation in construing a statute is the
legislative intent. Where t:he intent is apparent from the words of
the statute, it is not necessary to analyze the extrinsic evidence of
legislative intent. -See --
M~.nton v. Frank, 545 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.
1976); Calvert v. British-A$rican Oil Producing Co., 397 S.W.2d 839,
842 (Tex. 1965). Where the language of the statute is ambiguous. the
legislative intent may be cle;certainedby looking beyond the statute.
See Huntsville Independent School District v. McAdams, 221 S.W.2d 546
(Tex. 1949). Statutes shozld be construed in light of the circum-
stances existing at the time of their enactment, the evil sought to be
corrected, and the purpose ::obe accomplished. See Texas k N.O.R. Co.
v. Railroad Comrmission,200 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tz 1947); Wortham v.
Walker, 128 S.W.2d 1138, ll!iO(Tex. 1939). The Code Construction Act,
V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, 93.03, provides that, in construing a statute,
a court may consider, among other matters, the object sought to be
attained, the circumstances under which the statute was enacted, and
legislative history.
House Bill No. 1147 II; a comprehensive bill relating to tuition
and fees at institutions of higher education. It sets forth the
state's policy on tuition and constitutes the first major revision of
tuition for students in many years. The bill was amended on the house
floor to limit several waivers of nonresident tuition which had been
granted to persons who are ,notresidents of this state. Discussion on
the floor amendment in quest:Lonindicates:
(1) that the amendment dealt with three areas
where waivers were being abused, one being that
the mere fact that a person from out-of-state
wants to work fo:ca university should not exempt
the person from nonresident tuition;
(2) that the amendment to Rouse Bill No. 1147
eliminated only "other employees," leaving a
waiver for teaching assistants, research
assistants, and their spouses and children; and
(3) that "by keeping the academics," out-of-
state residents who bring something of benefit and
value to our institutions would be protected.
See House Floor Debate, March 19, 1985, Second Reading of Rouse Bill
No. 1147, 69th Legislature.
The institutions of hL8her education in this state use numerous
and different names as joI1 titles for the positions held by student
p. 1697
Honorable Wilhelmina Delco -'Page 3 (JM-370)
employees. Normally, in d~rterminingthe character or nature of an
entitv.
_-___, 1 -a conrt
----- -is guided by substance and not by a name. See
~nver & 1.1.
Widdleton v. Texas ______- .; ht, 185 S.W. 556, 562 (Tex. 1916); Liz
v. Emett, 526 S.W.2d 288, :!' !hTex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1975, no writ)
We find no indication that the legislature intended the waiver of
nonresident tuition to apply to a student assistant only if the title
of the student's job is "teaching assistant" or "research assistant."
It is our opinion that the legislature used the terms teaching
assistant and research assistant in section 54.063 as descriptive
terms identifying the duties and responsibilities of the student jobs
that entitle out-of-state fitudentsto register at Texas universities
on the payment of resident I:uition.
It also is our opinion that the legislature's purpose in granting
such tuition incentives to nonresident students is the enhancement of
the quality of the academic assistants who perform important scholarly
roles in the academic progr,ams of institutions of higher education.
We conclude that the waiver of nonresident tuition in section 54.063
is intended to apply to stu(Lentassistants with academic duties in all
academic programs of a unirersity. whether the programs are teaching
or research, if the assistant is employed at least one-half time in a
position that relates to the assistant's degree program under rules
and regulations established,by the employer institution. The waiver
in section 54.063 is not i,ntendedto apply to student employees who
assist in auxiliary enterprLses or are employed in nonacademic activi-
ties at a university.
SUMMARP
The terms "teaching assistant" and "research
assistant," as used in section 54.063 of the Texas
Education Code, are not intended as titles of
positions that determine the entitlement of
nonresident student employees to a waiver of
nonresident tuition at institutions of higher
education but are intended to describe the
academic positions~ of the student employees who
are entitled to such a waiver under that section.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
p. 1698
Honorable Wilhelmina Delco -'Page 4 (JM-370)
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICX GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
JirmMoellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Sarah Woelk
Bruce Youngblood
p. 1699