Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Attornesy General of Texas
June 19, 1986
JIM MAlTOX
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Eonorable Allen R>ss Hightower Opinion No. JM-504
P. 0. BOX 12548
Austin. TX. 78711. 2548
Chairman
512/4752501 Law Enforcement Cnnmittee Re: Whether section 16.02(e) of
Telex 9101874-1387 Texas Rouse of Representatives the Education Code, which autho-
Telecopier 51214750285 P. 0. Box 2910 rises a school district to re-
Austin, Texas 73769 ceive state funds in accordance
714 Jackson, Suite 700
with maximum price differential
Dallas. TX. 75M24508 index, is applicable beyond the
214l742.6944 1984-85 academic year
Dear Representative Hightower:
4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160
El Paso. TX. 759052793
915633-3484 You ask the op~inionof this office as to whether section 16.102(e)
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.
808 Broadway, Suite 312 Section 16.102(e) was enacted into the Education Code in 1984 by
Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 House Bill No. 72, Sixty-eighth Legislature, 2nd Called Session, as
806/747-5238
part of the chapter providing for the Foundation School Program.
Section 16.102 established a price differential adjustment of the
4309 N. Tenth. Suite B basic allotment jioreach school district. Subsection (a) of section
McAllen, TX. 75501-1885 16.102 provides th.at
5W882-4547
(a) 'The basic allotment for each district is
MO Main Plaza, Sulle 400 adjusted by multiplying the amount of the basic
San Antonlo. TX. 782052797 allotment by an. index factor that reflects the
512l2254191 geographic variation in resource costs due to
factors 'beyondthe control of the school district.
An Equal OpportunityI
Affirmative Action Empbyer
Subsection (b) scpplied a formula for adjust&g each district's basic
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:ldistricts 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:
p. 2312
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,lmestate 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.llotmentof 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,ictcharacteristics 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:EEducation 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
p. 2313
Honorable Allen Ross Hightower - Page 3 (``-504)
school district meeting cert:aincriteria 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:yGeneral
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney G#eneral
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee!
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2314