DAN MORALES

ATTORSEI GENERAL 

# QBffice

of toe Elttornep @eneral &date of PCexae January lo,1994
Honorable Barry L. Macha Criminal District Attorney 900 Seventh Street Wichita Falls, Texas 76301-2482

Dear Mr. Macha: Opinion No. DM-28 1
Re: Whether the State Board of Education is authorized to enact a regulation providing for the deduction of a school district’s debt to the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Texas School for the Deaf from available school fund payments to the school district (RQ-585)

You ask whether the State Board of Education (the “board”) is authorized to enact a regulation providing for the deduction of a school district’s debt to the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Texas School for the Deaf (the “state schools”) from available school timd payments to the school district. You state that in May 1993, the board enacted the following regulation, to be codified as section 89.239(c)(3) of title 19of the Texas Administrative Code:

Beginning with the 1993-1994 school year, if the agency cannOt make the deductions required by this section 6om a district’s foundation school program payments, the deductions shall be made from the available school fund payments to the district. A district shall indicate whether it will make a direct payment or authorize the [Texas Education Agency] to deduct the appropriate amount from the available school fund payment. See Texas Education Agency, 18 Tex. Reg. 3094 (May 14, 1993). Although the second sentence of the regulation suggests that a district will be given the choice between making a direct payment or authorizing the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”) to deduct the appropriate amount from the district’s available school fimd payment, we believe that when the second sentence is read in conjunction with the first sentence of the regulationt it is clear that the deductions from the available school fbnd payments are mandatory rather than voluntary.2

‘19T.A.C.589.239(c)(3)(Vedoctionsshallbemadefromtbeavailable schooltired

payments to thedistrict”)

(emphasis added).
ZWebelieve tbat tbe deductionsare, in essence, mandatory, becaose the regolatioowould aothorize theTEAtodedoct

thefends fromaschooldistrict’s available schoolfondpayment

iftbeschoolHonorable Barry L. Macha - Page 2 (DM-281)

You believe that this regulation violates article VII, section 5(a) of the Texas Constitution which creates the permanent school fund and the available school timd, and provides that the

available school tknd shall be applied annually to the support of the public free schools. Except as provided by this section, no law shall ever be enacted appropriating any part of the permanent or available school tkd to any other purpose whatever. and the available school fund herein provided shall be distributed to the several counties according to their scholastic population and applied in such manner as may be provided by law. See also Educ. Code @ 1512(a) (“All available public school timds of Texas shah be appropriated in each county for the education of its children.“), 20.48 (governing expenditures by public free schools).s Because we conclude that the new regulation exceeds the board’s statutory rule-making authority, we do not reach the question whether the deduction of funds owed to the state schools from available school fund payments runs afoul of article VII, section S(a). The reasons for our conclusion follow. Generally, an administrative agency can adopt only those rules that are authorized by and consistent with its statutory authority. Texas Fire & Gas. Co. v. Harris Count Bail BondBd., 684 S.W.Zd 177, 178 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ refd n.r.e.). An administrative agency may not adopt rules which impose additional burdens, conditions, or restrictions in excess of or inconsistent with those statutory provisions. Id.;

‘HoI&wood Calling v. Public WI. Comm’n of TeuLF, 805 S.W.2d 618, 620 (Tex. App.-Austin 1991, no writ).
Section 21.507 of the Education Code requires that “[flor each student enrolled in [the state schools], the school district that is responsible for providing appropriate special education services to the student shah share the cost of the student’s education as provided by this section.” Educ. Code § 21.507(a); see also id. $ 11.063(b) (as amended by Acts 1993, 73d Leg., ch. 383 (eff. Sept 1, 1993)) (setting forth kmding sources for the state schools). Subsection (d) of section 21.507 provides as follows:

Bach school district and state institution shah provide to the commissioner of education the necessary information to determine the district’s share under this section. After determining the
(foomote continued) district failstomakesanelectionorelectstomakesadirect payment andthenfailstodoso. Theelection setforthinthesecondsentence oftheregulation

is illusory.
Vhe 73rdLe.gishtmeadoptedlegislationthatrepealsmanychaptersof the EducationCode, includingchapiers15and21.e&ctive September 1, 1995. SeeActs 1993,73d Leg.,ch.347.5 8.33(2).

p. 1473Honorable Barry L. Iviacha - Page 3 (DM-281)

amount of a district’s share for all students for which the district is responsible, the commissioner shall deduct that amount from the payments of founabtion school funds payable to the district. Bach deduction shall be in the same percentage of the total amount of the district’s share as the percentage of the total fan&ion schoolfund entitlement being paid to the district at the time of the deduction, except that the amount of any deduction may be modifkd to make necessary adjustments or to correct errors. The commissioner shall provide for remitting the amount deducted to the appropriate school at the same time at which the remaining fknds are distributed to the school district. [Emphasis added.] Subsection (f) gives the board the authority to adopt rules to implement this section.
Pursuant to this rule-making authority, the board has adopted section 89.239(c) of title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code. Subparts (1) and (2) predate subpart (3). Subpart (1) requires school districts and the state schools to submit information to the TEA necessary to determine the school districts’ share of costs within thirty days of a student’s enrollment at one of the state schools. 19 T.A.C. 8 89.239(c)(l) (as amended by 18 Tex. Reg. 3094). Subpart (2) provides that the “TEA will make deductions from the school district’s regularly scheduled fmnabtion school program jimd puyments” and will make payments to the state schools according to an established schedule. Id. $89.239(c)(2) (emphasis added).
Unlike preexisting subpart (2) which authorizes the TEA to deduct funds from foundation school find payments, new subpart (3) authorizes the TEA to deduct funds fkom available school fbnd payments. Apparently, the board relies solely upon subsection (t) of section 21.507 of the Education Code as the source of its rule-making authority. See Texas Education Agency, 18 Tex. Reg. 1996, 1997 (March 30, 1993); id. at 3094 (May 14, 1993).4 Section 21.507 of the Education Code expressly authorizes the commissioner of education to deduct tinds from foundation school find payments. It makes no mention of deductions from available school fknd payments, and we do not believe that the authority to make mandatory deductions from payments from that timd may be implied from the statute. Whereas the foundation school program is a creature of

The mnendmwtis adopIed underIheTexasEducationcode, p21.507(f), which authorizesthe State Board of Education (SBOE) to a&@ rules as ncccssq 10implementstatutoryrequirements concerningsuppodof students mkrmd to the Texas Schoolfor the Blind and VisuallyImpimd or the Texas school fortheLkaf.
TexasEducation

Agency, 18Tex.Reg.3094(May14.1993).

p. 1474Honorable Barry L. Macha - Page 4 @M-281)

statute, see Educ. Code ch. 16 (establishing the foundation school program), the available school tknd is a creature of the constitution, see Ten. Const. art. VII, 4 5(a); see also Educ. Code ch. 15 (providing for the administration of the permanent school fknd and the available school fund). Given this fact, we believe that if the legislature had intended to authorize the board to provide for mandatory deductions Tom available school timd payments, it would have provided so expressly. For this reason, we conclude that the new regulation is inconsistent with section 21.507 of the Education Code. See Hofllywood Calling, 805 S.W.2d at 620; Texas Fire & Gas. Co., 684 S.W.2d at 178.

Furthermore, we believe that the regulation imposes additional burdens on school districts in excess of those imposed by that statutory provision. See Holl&wond Calling, 805 S.W.2d at 620; T~ULF Fire & Car. Co., 684 S.W.Zd at 178. While section 21.507 of the Education Code provides for deductions from schools’ foundation school tknd payments, the regulation imposes mandatory deductions from an additional tknding source, the available school fund. Although we appreciate the diicuhy TEA may have collecting tkrds for the state schools from school districts which do not receive foundation school fund payments and acknowledge the importance of collecting these timds, we can only conclude that section 89.239(c)(3) of title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code exceeds the board’s rule-making authority under section 21.507(f) of the Education Code.5

SUMMARY
The State Board of Education is not authorized by section 21.507(f) of the Education Code to enact a regulation providing for the mandatory deduction of a school district’s debt to the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Texas School for the Deaf from available school fimd payments to the school district.

DAN MORALES Attorney General of Texas

‘we do sot addres whether Ihe mgutation iS autborizcd by Some other statutoryxmrce ofdemskiagauolorlty.

p. 1475