Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1982 )


Menu:
  •                                           The Attorney General of Texas
    July 5, 1982
    MARK WHITE
    Attorney General
    Supreme      Court Building             Mr. Evans N. Wents                       Opinion No. ?w482
    P. 0. Box 12546
    Executive Director
    Austin,    TX. 76711. 2546
    51214752501
    State Commission for the Blind           Re: Authority of Commission
    Telex    9101674-1367                   P. 0. Box 12866                          for the Blind to guarantee
    Telecopier     5121475.0266             Austin, Texas   78711                    loan repayments
    Dear Mr. Wents:
    1607 Main St., Suite 1400
    Dallas. TX. 75201.4709
    2141742.6944                                 The Sixty-seventh Legislature enacted section 91.0301 of    the
    Human Resources Code, which provides as follows:
    4624 Alberta       Ave., Suite    160
    (a) The [C]ommission [for the Blind] may
    El Paso, TX.       79905.2793
    9151533.3464
    establish a program to make loans to finance the
    purchase of technological aids for visually
    handicapped persons. Interest on the loans may
    1220 Dallas Ave.. Suite          202             not exceed 10 percent a year.
    Houston,     TX. 77002-6966
    7131650-0666
    (b) The director may promulgate rules to
    administer the loan program.
    606 Broadway.        Suite 312
    Lubbock,     TX.    79401.3479          Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 126, at 317.
    6061747-5236
    You state as follows:
    4309 N. Tenth, Suite S
    McAllen,     TX. 76501-1685                           It has been suggested that the commission
    5121662.4547                                     would be more prudent and achieve better results
    by arranging the specific loans through existing
    200 Main Plaza. Suite 400
    bank channels and acting as guarantor for the
    San Antonio,  TX. 76205.2797                     loans, it being understood that the exposure of
    5121225.4191                                     the commission would be limited to the specific
    portion of its endowment funds restricted to such
    An Equal      Opportunity/
    use.
    Affirmative     Action     Employer
    This suggestion has merit in that it does not
    involve the commission in the direct management of
    a loan fund, and it works to establish the credit
    record or history of the borrowers in the
    commercial market.
    p. 1701
    .i   .
    Mr. Evans N. Wentz - Page 2   (kg+482)
    You ask:
    Does the commission need specific legislative
    authority to enter into a program calling for it
    to guarantee loan repayments, using a portion of
    its endowments as collateral?
    Administrative agencies have only those powers expressly granted by
    statute or necessarily implied therein. Stauffer v. City of San
    Antonio, 
    344 S.W.2d 158
    (Tex. 1961); State v. Jackson, 
    376 S.W.2d 341
    (Tex. 1964). If applicable statutes do not grant an agency the power
    to do a particular thing, then the agency has no such power. Nueces
    County Water Control and Improvement District No. 3 v. Texas Water
    Rights Commission, 
    481 S.W.2d 924
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1972, writ
    ref'd n.r.e.); Martinez v. Texas Employment Commission, 570 S.W.Zd 28
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christ1 1978, no writ).
    Section 91.0301 clearly does not expressly authorize the loan
    program you describe. The remaining question is whether it impliedly
    authorizes such a program. We answer in the negative.          In our
    opinion, the power to establish a loan program through bank channels,
    with the cosuaission acting as guarantor on the loans and using a
    portion of its endowments as collateral, simply cannot be said to be
    reasonably implied in a statute which merely authorizes the commission
    to establish and operate a loan program itself. If nothing else, the
    fact that the loan program would be administered by banks, rather than
    by the commission, is, in our opinion, sufficient to enable us to
    conclude that the proposed program is too different from the program
    contemplated by section 91.0301 to be permissible under that section.
    The proposed loan program may be one which the legislature would
    authorize if it considered the matter. We must take statutes as we
    find them. however. and we cannot read into them more than their words
    will clearly sanction and fairly sustain. Texas Highway Commission v.
    El Paso Building and Construction Trades Council, 
    234 S.W.2d 857
    (Tex.
    1950); Railroad Conrmissionof Texas v. Miller, 434 S.W.Zd 670 (Tex.
    1968). We therefore conclude that express or implied authority for
    the loan program you describe is necessary (assuming, of course: that
    such authority is provided in accordance with the requirements of the
    Texas Constitution), and that section 91.0301 of the Human Resources
    Code does not furnish such authority. You do not ask and we do not
    address any question relating to the constitutionality of section
    91.0301.
    SUMMARY
    Section 91.0301 of the Human Resources Code
    does not authorize the Commission for the Blind to
    p. 1702
    Mr. Evans N. Wents - Page 3   (MW-482)
    establish, through existing bank channels, a
    program to make loans to finance the purchase of
    technological aids     to   visually   handicapped
    persons, with the commission acting as guarantor
    on the loans and using a portion of its endowments
    as collateral.
    MARK      WHITE
    Attorney General of Texas
    JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    RICHARD E. GRAY III
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    Prepared by Jon Bible
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
    Jon Bible
    Patricia Hinojosa
    Jim Moellinger
    Bruce Youngblood
    p. 1703