June26, 1951

Hon. J.W. Edgar Commissioner of Education Texas Education Agency Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1195 Re: Authority ofthe State Cornmissioner of Education in recomputing the economic index required by the Foundation School Program Act (S. B. 116,ch. 334, Acts 51st Leg., R.S.. 1949). Dear Sir: Your request for an opinion relates tothe authority of the Commissionef, with the approval ofthe State Board of Education, in recomputmg the economic index for distribution of local fund assignments inthe admin%stration ofthe Foundation School Program. The questions you present are paraphrased as follows:

1. Was it theintention of the Legislature to require thatlocal fund assignments total $45,QOQ,OOO each year? : . . 2. Does the Commissioner, with the approval of the State Board ofEducation, have authority to make an adjustment in the economic index for any county due fo a ‘sudden marked decline in economic activity in a COU*** and, if so, would it be necessary for.,an adjustment tobe made in the economic index for each ofthe other counties inthe State .inorder to provide the total “of$45,QOO,OOO

in local fund assignments1 3. Ifin answer to the second question you hold thatthe Commissioner may make adjustmentsfor “sud-

‘den marked decline in econom$ activity.. would the reduction in local fund assignments in a county be paid

‘outofthe Foundation School Fund? 4, Ifadjustments may be made for -sudden marked decline in economic activity,” may the Commissioner ,grant an adjustment which would result in any school district being required to raise less money than the amount to be secured by applying the maximum maintenance rate against State and County valuations ?

## 254

‘Hon. 3.W. Edgar, page 2 (V-llq5)

5. Is the Commissioner limited to theuse of the latest single publication giving data onthevarious factors tobe utilized andweighted in determining the economic index, or may a series of ths latest official publications and reports of such agencies be used and may the Commissioner decide which years are sufficiently *recent” to furnish reliable data? 6. May the Commissioner, with Board approval, reconsider the economic index adopted on March 5, and recompute the index for theyear lq51-1952and promulgate such new index tothe counties? 7. May the Commissioner, with Board approval, make an adjustment inthe economic index of a county where there has been a “sudden marked decline in economic activity” and amend the economic index for any given year and establish a new index for all of the counties in view of the adjustment? With respect toyour first question: Obligations of school districts to provide financial support for the Foundation School Program were fixed by the 51stLegMature by the enactment of Senate Bill No. ll6 (Art. 2922-16,,V. C.S.). This act (Article VI, Sec. 2) provides in park

*The sum of the amounts to be charged annually against the local school districts ofthe State toward such Foundation School Program shall be Forty-five Million ($45,000,000.00) Dollars.

. . .” After the $45,OOQ,OOO.O0 local effort requirement has been used in computing thebasic formula for sums to be raised by each district, there are some reductions allowed to school districts iu certain situations. For ~&stance, Section 5 of the Act provides thatthe amount of local funds initially determined against a district may be reduced if it contains designated special tax exempt laud, or if the local funds obligation assigned is greater thanthe taxyield from the maximum legal levy onthe basis of State and county tax valuations. To such extent the Act does not require the total annual assignment of $45,000,000.00 to be raised by local districts.

On the other hand, and more important to this opinion, is thefact that $45,000,000.00 is the basic total amount which the Legislature has set to be used in computing the economic index for

## 255

Hon. J. W, Edgar, page 3 (V-ll95)

alI counties of Fe Statefor each four year period. For this purpm% the total amount of $45,000.0$.0~ must be usedjust as though fhat f& total amount was requiredtobe raised by the State’s lo&al dIstr~cte each year.

Withrespect toyour second question, you have advised that a new economic index has been computed for each county of the State using the weighted factors prescribed for thefour year period beginning with the 1951-1952 scholastic year. The new index was adopted Mar’ch 5,195l. You,ask ifyou may make a reductlon for a county ‘due to a sudden marked decline in economic activity” without readjusting all other counties so as to require a total -of $45.000.000.00 from local sources.

The Act (Art. VI, Sec. 3) provides in part:

.’

. . . The economic index for each county shall be based upon and determined by the following weighted factors:

a. b.

c. Assessed vahzation of the county--weighted by twenty (20); Scholastic pOpula&n of the county--weighted by eight (8); Income for the ccumtyas’measpred by: Value added by manufacture, value of minerals produced, value of agricultural products, payrolls for retail establishment+ payrolls for wholesde establishments, payrolls .for service es- .tablishments weighted coJlectively by seventytwo (72). “The economic index de&&&d for each county for the purposes ofthis Act,shall be used for a period

‘offour (4) years, beginning with the 1951-52schoot year, and theState Commissioner of Education, sub-. ject tothe apprwal of the State Board o<gducatiou. shall recompute a new such economic index each four (4) years, taking such information f.rom the,most recently available official publications and reports of

‘agencies ofthe State of Texas or.the~Federal Govern-

-‘m&t. Provided that should there be a sudden marked .decline inthe economic activity in a county, an adjustment ofthe county’s ec~onomicindex may.be made by the‘StateCommissioner of Education,. subject,to the approval of the State Board of Education.”Hon. J.W. Edgar, page 4 (V-ll95)

You ask our opinion as towhat was meant by the Legislaturq inwkiting this last proviso into theAct Clearly, this ” - proviso must be read with.aUention focused onthe‘language oft,he whole act, particularly i&at of **Section** 3 ofArticle VI, and effect given to each provision. Popham v. **Patterson,** 121 Tex. 6l5, 51 S.W.2d 680 (1932); 39 Tex. Jur. LO9.statutes. Sec. l13.

The following language from the opinion of the court in Henderson v. United Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 10S.W.Zd 534 (Tex. Comm. Appm, at page 536, is a concise statement of this rule dconstruction:

.

. . . In constpxing statutes, as well as every other written instrument, it.is the duty ofthe courts to give effect to every word, phrase and sentence in suchway as to h+rmonize the meaning of each such word, phrase. or sentence with ‘theentire statute or : mstrument, if possible.* Itwill be noted from the portion of Section 3 quoted above thattheAct requires the Commissioner to use 'information from themoqt redently available official publications and reports of agencies ofthe State of Texas or the Federal ‘Government.‘ This language immediately precedes the proviso. the true meaning of whichwe must ascertain in **ordqsr** to answer your question.

Inyiew oftthe language of this proviso andthat ofthe clause which precedes it. and in’the light ofthepurpose the Legislature sought to accomplish by-the adoption ofthe Act.,we thinkthat the effect ofthe proviso is -tolimit or qualify the other languags of the Section so as to author&s the Gommissioner to consider infor-. .mation with respect to -a sudden marked decline inthe economic .activity in a county” from reliable sources **other** than

-‘themost recently available official publicat&ms and reports of agencies of the State of Texas~or the Federal **Government ”**  in recomputing the new four year index, if the latest official publications and **reports** do notreflect such **information.**

This interpretation ia.strengthened by the’fact that, as you have advised, iqformation asp to some oftheweighted factors is available atfour year intervals only, ofwhich fact we must presums the Legislature had knowledge at thetime theAct was adopted. .hnperial Irr. Co. v. Jayne, 104Tex. 395, 138Sew. 575 (1911);3-9 T J 248 statqtes, Sec. Ui?. Information from the latest offi% s&a&ona and reports may not be sufficiently current to reflect a sudden marked decline in economic activity, and unless the Commissioner can look to other reliable sources of hfOrmdORHon. J:W. Edgar. page 5 (V-llq5)

it might notbe possible to compute an index ,accurately indicating thetaxpaying ability of each-county. ”

Ithas been urged by some that the proviso applies not to the source ofinformation for the four year ec~onomicindex but authorizes you to recompute and reduce a single county’s economic index at any time during the four year period due to ‘sudden marked decline in economic activity.” This would reduce thetotal $45,000.- 000.00basic sum tobe charged annually against the State’s local districts. or require a recomputation for all counties so as .tamake upfor the reduction given a single county.

To so construe the proviso would make the Foundation School Program unwieldy, if not unworkable, andwould superimpose upontheAct a meaning not contemplated by the Legislature. Ifthe Act were interpreted to mean thatthe Commissioner is authoriaed or directed to recompute or ‘adjust* the econo;nicindex each.year

‘or more often in response to requests of counties inwhich it is contended there has been a “sudden marked decline in economic activity,” thewhole purpose of theAct; in time, could be thwarted.

We do notbelieve the lawmaking body contemplated that an adjustment ofthe county economic index would be made more ,oftenthan**every** four years. Our view in this is supported by plain andunambiguous language found elsewhere in Section 3:

“The economic index for each county for thepur- ,pses ofthis Act shall be used for a period offour (4) years, . . .” The act confers. no authority uponthe Commissioner:to recompute the economic index and make.adjustments reflecting ‘sudden marked decline in economic activity’ except tothe extent that such adjustments may appear necessary when recomputing a’new four-year index. No authority is granted to amend or change the economic index of a county at any other time,

The Legislature wisely provided ample safeguards to make sure thatlocal funds will not be required of districts in excess of*paying ability; These safeguards, which follow, render unnecessary amendment of the county economic index at intervals shorter thanfour years.

Paragraph 4,of Section’5 of Article VI provides: “Provided that if the revenue thatwould be derived from the legal maximum, local maintenanceHon. J. W. Edgar, page 6 (Vill95)

school tax is less thanthe ,amountthat is assigned to a school district according to the economic index, and if such property valuation is not less thansaid property is valued for Stats and county purposes, such lesser amount shall be the amount assigned to be raised by such school district.” To further insure thatlocal fund requirements notexceed taxpaying ability, the Legislature also provided in Paragraph 3 of Section 5 ofArticle VI:

“Provided. however, that in any district containing StateUniversity-owned land, S.tate-owned prison land, Federal-owned forestry land, Federal-owned military reservations or Federal-owned Indian reservations, the amount assigned tosuch school district shall be reduced in theproportion thatthe area included in the above-named r$assifications bears to the total area of the district.

. . .* .We also direct attention to paragraph l3 of Section 5 ofArticle VI which reads:

“Ifthere has been a marked increase or decrease

‘inthe assessed valuation of a school district within a county, and if the County School Board certifies that theuse oCthe county and school distrikt valuations for the preceding year in deteimnininglocal fund.assignmente to the school districts in the couuty would be inequitable, and recommends a different distribution of the countytotal thanthat made by the State Commissioner of Education; such recommendations. subject tothe approval of said Commissioner, shall become andbe the lawful local fund assignments to such districts.” Since the Legislature specifically set the sum oftotal local fund requirements at $45.000.000.00 to be raised by a,Ilthe State’s school districts and set that sum as the total ‘tobe used in figuring county economic indexes without any provision for recomputationmore often than every four years, we are compelled to hold thatits proviso in Section 3 concerning “sudden marked decline in economic activity” relates not to computation of new county economic indexes oftener thanevery four years. but relates solely to the sources used for computing county economic index for each four year period.

## 259

.Hon. J.W, Edgar, page 7 (V-ll95)

~: With **respect to**  **your** third,and fourth questions,, we refer you to our answers to your fir&and se&nd questions,

With respect toyour fifthquestion: The language of Section 3 of Article VI is clear with respect to information sources to which the Commissioner must look. **He** is directed to use thelatest official reports available in computing the new economic index, buttwe find nothing in this or any 

### otherprovision ofthe act that limits the Commissioner to the use of a single publication or report. Latest reports of one or several agencies giving the information desired may be used. Itis our view, however, from an analysis of thislanguage, thatthe Commissioner is not authorized to‘determine what years are sufficiently recent to furnish reliable data. He must use *the most recently available official publications and reports,” except as otherwise provided in the last proviso of Section 3 in order to give effect to *sudden marked’decline in the economic activity.g

With respect to your s&h **question:** The Ad does notfix a definite date for the adoption, 

### release, or publication of 5.new county economic index for theensuing four year period. It appears, therefore;that the requirements of the statute are met when a new index is released to the districts or counties on a date allowing sufficient time for making the tax rolls. If sufficient time remains to permit the Commissioner to adjust and 

### recompute the economic index ado@d March 5; 1951, for the next **four** years, in order to give effect to data now available, we thinktheindex may be recomputed, Ifthe Commissioner andthe Board determine thatthe prior’release was premature andthat a recomputation is necessary in order accurately to calculate the index for each county andto give due consideration to any “sudden marked decline in the economic activity” of any county before the ,fouryear index becomes flual. we see no reason why it may not be done. That is a matter whoIly within the discretion ofthe Commissioner andthe State Board of Education. .,.

%r answer toyour second question answers your seventhquestion. SUMMARY

The Foundation School Program Act (Senate Bill

‘116,ch. 334, Acts 51stLeg., R.S., 1949,Art. 2922-16,Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 8 (V-ll95)

V.C.S.), requires that $45,OOQ,OOO be charged annually to districts tobe raised locally. The Commissioner cf Education, with the approval of the State Board of Education, is authorized and required to recompute a new index every four years using *information from the most recently available official publications and reports of agencies ofthe State of Texas or the Federal Government,” but may consider information as to “a sudden marked decline in the economic 

### activity" in a county from other reliable sources. The Commissioner is not confined te any single publication providing data on thevarious factors but must use ‘information from the most recently available official publications and reports” except when, in order to give effect to ‘sudden marked decline in the economic activity/’ it is necessary to consider information from other reliable sources. Yours very truly, PRICE DANIEL Attorney General

APPROVED: .Jesse ‘P. Luton. Jr. Reviewing Assistant Charles D. Mathews First Assistant Executive Assistant

Price Daniel Attorney General EHb