. _ -.

, 

# GENERAL
ACRTIS. **TEXAS** 76711

September 12, 1973 The Honorable Russell Cummings Executive Director Opinion No. H- 98 Texas Mass Transportation Commission Re: Interpretation of $3(e) 1013San Jacinto of~senate Bill 642, 63rd Austin, Texas 78701 Legislature, as towhether governing body ofapiincipal city or the Rapid Transit Authority is to Dear Mr. Cummings: submit plan for review Your letter requesting our opinion is directed to a‘question concerning the procedure for the creation ofa Rapid Transit Authority pursuant to Senate Bill 642 ofthe 63rd Legislature (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 141, p. 302). This statute will be codified as Article 1118x, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes. Generally itauthorizes the creation and organization in metropolitan areas of rapid transit authorities. Their creation is governed by §3which requires the governing body ofa metropolitan area, either on its own motion or upon being presented with a petition signed by not less than 5,000 qualified voters, toinstitute proceedings to create such an authority. The first step required is the adoption ofan ordinance or resolution fixing a time and place for a public hearing on the proposal. [F3(a)] Subsection (b) of §3requires that notice of such hearing bepublished. Subsection (c) relates tothe conduct ofthe hearing. Subsection (d)provides that if, after such hearing, the governing body of the principal city finds that the creation ofthe system would be of benefit&c., it shall adopt an ordinance creating the authority and prescribing its boundaries. Finally, Subsection (e)provides:

“After such hearing by the governing body of such authority, the said authority shall submit the proposed plan to the governor’s interagency transportation council for their review and comment. ” (emphasis added)

p. 447The Honorable Russell Cummings, page 2 (H-98)

Your question to us is:

ISince the ‘governing body of such authority’ has not held any ‘such hearing, ’is it the intent of this subsection to direct the governing body ofthe principal city rather than the governing body of authority to submit the plan to the Governor’s Interagency Council for review and comment? ” Inconstruing the statutes it is always our purpose to so construe them as to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. State v. Jackson, 376 S. W. 2d 341 (Tex. 1964); Calvert v. British-American Oil Producing Co., 397 S.W. 2d 839 (Tex. 1966). Normally, unambiguous language will beinterpreted literally. However, as it is stated in 53 Tex. Jur. 2d. Statutes, $140, p. 203, with ample support in the authorities:

“It is not the function ofthejudiciary to correct

legislative errors, mistakes, or omissions. Ifthe language ofa statute is plain, a court will not eliminate or supply aword or clause on the supposition that it was included or omitted by inadvertence. But obvious errors or mistakes ofa clerical, grammatical, or typographical nature may be disregarded.
. . .” (emphasis added) To that extent, where necessary, courts may add or delete language. Sweeny Hospital District v. Carr, 378 S.W. 2d43 (Tex. 1964); State v. Shoppers World Inc., 380 S.W. 2d 107 (Tex. 1964). As we read Subsection (e) of S3it is clear thatthe Legislature intended that it read: “After such hearing by the governing body of

such principal city, theprincipal city shall submit the proposed plan tothe governor’s interagency transportation council for their review and comment. ”

p. 448. -, .

I The Honorable Russell Cummings, page 3 (H-98)
Any other construction would be meaningless in view of the fact that at thetime to which reference is made, i.e., “After such hearing, ” the “proposed plan” is the plan ofthe principal city to create an authority. The authority, if it is even in existence at that time, will have no plan. The purpose of the notice is to secure the assistance of the council in organizing the authority and formulating its plan. We should not adopt a construction of a statute which would result in an absurdity. State Highway Department v. Gorham, 162S.W. 2d 934 (Tex. 1942); Dovalina v. Albert, 409 S.W. 2d 616 (Tex. Civ. App., Amarillo, 1966, err. ref., n.r. e.) Further, as we substitute “principal city” for “authority” in one place in the subsection, it is our opinion that “said authority” elsewhere in the subsection should likewise refer to the same governmental body, i. e., the city. We therefore answer your question that the notice to be given to the Governor’s Interagency Council should come from the governing body of the principal city. SUMMARY Section 3(e) ofSenate Bill 642, 63rd Legislature, .should be read to require that notice ofa proposed plan for a Rapid Transit Authority shall be furnished to the Governor’s Interagency Transportation Council by the governing body ofthe principal city rather than by the governing body of the authority. Very truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas

p. 449The Honorable Russell Cummings, page 4 (H-98)

APPROPED: 

# I 1 u

DhfiD M. KENDALL, Choirman Opinion Committee

p. 450