THE A-RNDSY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

CW*WlrORD c. MARTIN AUSTIN. TEXAS 787ll 

f----------1--7 

J&E 19, 1972 

Honorable Philip G. Hoffman Opinion No. M-1162 

Office of the President 

University of Houston Re: Is the University of Houston 

Houston, Texas 77004 prevented by Texas law from 

collecting voluntary contributions 

from students for the Texas 

Public Interest Research Group 

on either a charge or gratuitous 

Dear Doctor Hoffman: basis? 

Your request for an opinion from this office reads as follows: 

“Is the University of Houston prevented by 

Texas law from collecting voluntary contributions 

from students for the Texas Public Interest Research 

Group on either a charge or gratuitous basis?” 

The applicable provisions of the Texas Education Code pertaining 

to the collection of fees from students are set out as follows: 

Section 54.003. 

“No institution of higher education may collect 

from students attending the institution anv tuition. 

fee, or charge of any kyind except as permitted bi 

law, and no student may be refused admission to 

adischarged from any institution for the nonpayment 

of any tuition, fee, or charge except as permitted by 

law. ” (V. A C. S. Art. 2654a, Sec. 1) (Emphasis 

added. ) 

-5665- 
Honorable Philip G. Hoffman, page 2 (M-l 162) 

Section 54.004. 

“All tuition, local funds, and fees collected by 

an institution of higher education shall be retained 

and expended by the institution and accounted for 

annually as provided in the general appropriations 

act. ” (V. A.C. S. Art. 2654c, Sec. l(n), 2 (part).) 

(Emphasis added. ) 

Section 54.005. 

“The provisions of this subchapter requiring the 

governing board of each institution of higher education to collect tuition fees do not deprive the board 

of the right to collect special fees authorized by law. ” 

(V. A. C. S. Art. 2654c, Sec. l(m) (part);) (Emphasis 

added. ) 

Section 54.503. 

“(a) For the purposes of this section, ‘student 

services’ means textbook rentals, recreational 

activities, health and hospital services, automobile 

parking privileges, intramural and intercollegiate 

athletics, artists and lecture series, cultural entertainment series, debating and oratorical activities, 

student publications, student government, and any 

other student activities and services specifically 

authorized and approved by the appropriate governing 

board. 

“(b) The governing board of an institution of higher 

education may charge and collect from students registered at the institution fees to cover the cost of 

student services which the board deems necessary or 

desirable in carrying out the educational functions 

of the institution. The fee or fees may be either 

sry or compulsory as determined by the governing 

board. The total of all com$lsory student service 

fcesollected from a student for any one semester or 

summer session shall not exceed $30. . . , ” (Emphasis 

added. ) 

-5666” 
Honorable Philip G. Hoffman, page 3 (M-1162) 

From the data and information furnished this office it is shown 

that the Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG) will be operated 

as follows: 

“TexPIRG is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, studentbased corporation to be funded by Texas college 

students through a collection of an optional fee of 

$2.00 per semester. its Board of Directors comprised solely of students will be elected by the 

students participating in the TexPIRG financing. Any 

enrolled, fee-paying student can seek election to the 

TejtPIRG Board of Directors, and there will be at 

least one representative for each school participating; 

for the larger schools there will be one representative 

for each 5, 000 students participating. 

“The professional staff of TexPIRG will consist of 

lawyers and professionals from such fields as engineering, biological and physical sciences, social 

sciences, urban and regional planning, and public 

administration. The staff will be selected by the 

State Board of Directors and will be employed on a 

fulltime basis. The general areas of TexPIRG concern 

will include consumer protection resource planning, 

occupational safety, protection of natural areas and 

environmental quality, racial and sexual discrimination, 

landlord-tenant relations, delivery of health care, and 

similar matters of urgent or longrange concern of 

the people of Texas. TexPIRG will have no formal 

connection, financial or otherwise, with any national 

organization or any public interest group located outside 

Texas. Action taken by TexPIRG will consist of a 

coordinated effort of analysis and research, public 

education, active representation before legislative 

bodies and before administrative and regulatory 

agencies, and litigation where such actions are 

warranted to achieve the goals of this group. 

“One of TexPlRG’s primary goals is to involve 

students in all aspects of TexPIRG’s work in order 

not only to utilize their energies, ambitions and 

-5667- 
Honorable Philip G. Hoffman, page 4 (M-1162) 

resources, but also to educate the students in the 

practical application of their knowledge. Students 

will be expected to act in several capacities: informing 

the professional staff of both the student and community 

concerns on specific issues; testifying before legislative 

and administrative hearings; drafting of model legislation; 

and preparing legal memoranda and basic legal research 

on selected topics. ” 

From reading the above it appears that your University would only 

be an agency or pipeline to collect from students, on either a compulsory 

or voluntary basis, money with which to finance TexPIRG. Your Board 

would have no control or authority over TexPIRG as the facts show that the 

Directors of TexPIRG are elected from each participating school. In 

effect your University would be collecting money to operate a private nonprofit corporation; therefore any fee collected under the provisions of 

Section 54.503 on a voluntary basis to fund TexPIRG would be outside 

the scope of carrying out the educational functions of your University, 

the scope of which is limited by the statute. 

In addition to the matters di,scussed in the foregoing paragraph, 

it does not appear from the facts submitted that the proposed fee to 

be collected from students at various institutions of higher education 

and used to fund TexPIRG, would or could be classified as a fee that 

would be used for a governmental purpose, and the collection of such fee 

by your University would be prohibited by Section 51 of Article III of the 

Constitution of the State of Texas, which provides, in its relevant part: 

“The Legislature shall have no power to make 

any grant or authorize the making of any grant of 

public moneys to any individual, association of 

individuals, muncipal or other corporations whatsoever; . . . ” 

In r-he case of Texas Pharmaceutical Ass’n. v. Dooley, 90 S. W. 2d 

328 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936 , no writ) the Court held that a statute which 

authorized the State Board of Pharmacy to collect fees from pharmacists 

and turn a porti,on of the fees over to the State Pharmaceutical Association, 

-5668- 
Honorable Philip G., Hoffman, page:5 ‘(M-1162) 

a private corporation, was unconstitutional because the fees were public 

money, whether deposited in the treasury or not, and therefore a grant 

of public money for other than governmental purposes was in violation 

of Section 51 of Article III of the Texas Constitution. The court states 

at page 330: 

11 

. . . the appropriation of the major, portion of 

same to a private corporation in nowise charged with 

the enforcement of, thy act, would be clearly void. 

Appellant is not in any wise @own to be subject to 

any control of the, State Board of Pharmacy, whose 

. members were public officers of the state, required 

to take the constitutional oath of office, empowered 

to administer oaths, whose records required to be 

kept are made prima facie evidence in any judicial 

proceeding in this state, and designated in the act 

as the agency of the state for the enforcement of 

the laws pertaining to the practice of pharmacy. In 

s? far as, the fees appropriated to it are reasonably 

necessary to enforce such regulation under the police 

power, the aci is valid and sustainable. But in so 

far as the act undertakes to appropriate such feels to 

appellant, a private corporation, and nqt a state 

agency, it is void even if considered as a police 

regulation and not as a tax measure. 

“On the other hand, if these fees provided for in 

section 14 above quoted and appropriated to appellant 

be considered as not reasonably necessary for the 

Board of Pharmacy to discharge its duties under the 

law and to enforce the same, but as levied for purposes 

of revenue, then clear1 we think they become public 

funds or pub + IC moneys, whether deposited in the state 

treasury or not, and the attempted grant thereof to 

appellant private corporation is in clear violation of 

section 5c’art. 3 of the Cons-;cIIuc1on. ‘----’ --- . . . (cmpna; ‘,-~- ~~‘~ sis 

added. ) 

- 5669- 
Honorable Philip G. Hoffman, page 6 (M-1162) 

You are therefore advised that in our opinion the University of 

~‘.Houston is.~no.t.a,uthorized to collect fees from students to fund the 

operations of TexPIRG. 

SUMMARY 

Under the facts submitted the University of 

Houston is prevented by both Section 54.503, 

Texas Education Code, and Section 51 of Article 

III of the Texas Constitution from collecting a 

voluntary fee from students to fund the Texas 

Public Interest Research Group. 

neral of Texas 

Prepared by John H. Banks 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

John Reeves 

John Traylor 

Ralph Rash 

L,inward Shivers 

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

- 5670-