# The Attorney General of Texas
March 15, 1978

Honorable Neal T.Jones, Jr. County Attorney for Hill County Hillsboro, Texas 76645 Opinion No.H-1136 Re: Construction of section 17.99,Texas Education Code. Dear Mr.Jones: Youinquire whether section 17.99ofthe Texas Education Code requires the reclassification of rural high school districts as independent school districts. Section 17.99, which was enacted in 1975as one section of House Bill 226,reads asfollows:

On September 1, 1978, all common school districts located in a county and in counties with no common school districts, rural high school districts, orindependent districts with less than one hundred fifty flSO> ADAthat donot support county school administration from ad valorem tax revenue generated pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18 of this code. shall be reclassified as independent school districts by the Central Education Agency, andthereafter the districts shall begoverned by the provisions oflaw applicable to independent school districts. Members ~ofthe governingboards of a common school district reclassified as an independent school distrmt shall continue to serve as trustees of the district until their respective terms of office expire. Each district shall continue to be governed by the same number of trustees elected for the same terms of .office in effect immediately preceding the district’s reclassification. @l17phasisadded). 8ducation Code S17.99; Acts 1975,64th Leg.,.ch. 478, at After studymg House B111226 with particular attention to the underlined language, we have concluded that section 17.99does not require the reclassification ofany school districts. House Bill 226 as introduced would have terminated State funding for all county school superintendents, leaving the county and school districts the

p. 4628Honorable Neal T.Jones, Jr. - Page 2 (R-1136 )

option of supporting county school administration. Its six sections, enacted with amendments as sections 17.94through 17.99ofthe Education Code, provided for the abolition of any county school administration that wasnot funded locally. Section 17.99inthe original version of the bill reclassified as independent school districts all common school districts located in a county that chose not to support county school administration. However, the Senate amended sections 17.94, 17.95, and 17.99 by adding the underlined language. The bill as enacted applied only to
“counties with no common school districts, rural high .school districts, or independent districts with less than one hundred fifty (150)ADA.” See Attorney General Opinion H-1103(1977). -
The Senate Education Committee, which amended section 17.94, discussed this change at a meeting on April 16,1975. Tape recording of Senate Education Committee, filed in Senate Staff Services Office. It wasexplained that ifacounty had one independent school district with less than one hundred fifty average daily attendance, the office of the county superintendent would not be abolished. Ifthe county had one common school district, the office would not be abolished. Thus, the discussion reflected adecision not to end State funding for acounty with even one ofthe enumerated districts. The amending language was added to sections 17.95and 17.99on the Senate floor. Daily Senate Journal, 64th Leg., R.S., 1975,at 938. Its addition to section 17.95 merely conformed it to section 17.94. The addition of the amendment to section 17.99, however, rendered that provision very difficult to interpret. As amended and enacted, section 17.99applies to “4 common school districts located in a county and counties with nocommon sctiool districts.

. . .ll (Emphasis added). This description isself-contrad%tory, and no school distri~ct fits it. The provision therefore applies to no school districts, with the effect that no common school districts will be reclassified as independent school districts pursuant to its provisions. This result, however, is consistent with the apparent legislative purpose expressed during the bill’s consideration. The reclassification of common school districts as independent would have prepared them for the loss of county administrative services by enabling them to perform those services themselves. Compare Education Code SS22.08 - 22.10 with 23.01 - 23.31. Since the bill as enacted didnot withdraw State funding for county school administration incounties with even one common school district, there wasnoneed to increase the powers of those districts. Thus, our conclusion that section 17.99 has no effect actually furthers the legislative intent reflected inHouse Bill 226as awhole. Weare aware of a construction that would give section 17.99some meaning. Itcould be interpreted asapplicable to common school districts located ina county having no school district, whether common, rural, or independent, with less than onehundred fifty average daily attendnnce. Rowever, the legislative history of the bill and other provisions of the Education Code show that the independent school

P. 4629Honorable Neal T.Jones, Jr. - Page 3 (H-1136)

district with less than one hundred fifty scholastics belongs in a discrete class of school districts. Educ. Code S23.02 (independent school district having fewer than one hundred fifty scholastics); S22.01(common school district); SS25.01, 25.02 (rural high school district). The limitation of one hundred fifty students does not apply to the common and rural districts. Wedecline to edopt aconstruction which is contrarv to the legislative intent ascertainable from the bill and the Education Code taken as awhole. See State v.School Trustees ofShelby County, 239S.W.2d 777(Tex. 1951). -
SUMMARY

Section 17.99 of the Education Code does not require the reclassification as independent districts of any school districts.

APPROVED: Attorney General ofTexas

DAVIDM.KENDALL, First Assistant

C.ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jst

p. 4630