Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

565
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN ,
GROVER SELLERS
ATTOINSY GSNCRAL
Honorable !I!. M. Trimble /+cv &A
Firrrt Assistant
State Supt. of Pub& Instruction
Auatirr, Texq
Ihsr Sir; Qphli0n NO, O-7346
Ret 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, &ymnssiumand tuition.”
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
than in this aat, I,
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:
“sea, 2. . It shall bo mandatory that each
Institution &icipatfng In the SumIs herein provld-
ed shall eolleot from laah 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 a llmltatlon as to mlnlmumfees which
may be charged by a junior college ii it is to qualify for partl-
oipatlon in Stats funds; houever, no maximumscale 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
institutions of higher learning.” This provision is obviously
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. 26540 as one under 21 years of 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 6 to 21, etc., obviouely do not ap-
PlP. Yet, an analogy may be drawn,
In Sloocmb v. CameronIndependent School Mstrict, 116
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
Cameron dlstriot. The trustees of the Cameron district entered
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..naction 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
such district. In other vorda, as long as the state
agportlorrment will operate the schools of the lnde-
pendent dir trlot, the transfer pupfl, vhose state ap-
yy:;;ment Is also transferred, is not required to pap
But, vhen tbe schools of the independent dis-
trLct &at continue their term vlth money raised by
local taxes levied upon the property within such
Honorable T. M. Trlmble, page 4
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, 35 S.W.
(2d) 780~ Opfnions go, O-2177 snd I?o, o-6333.
It IS seen, therefore, that a 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 junior oollege. The llmlt8tion on the amount of taxes is
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-
trict. Love V* city of Dallas, supra.
Honorable T. #.. Trirnble, 3wge 5
You are, ther8for0, advised that the Iollovlslg 1s the
op5.nion .of this dopcrrtmentr
1. A junior c911egs organized under Article 2815h
is authorimd to fix reasonable tuition fees for its studonte,
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-
cr8tFon of the boerd oi hurters of the junior oollege district.
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 a 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