June 26, 1951 

Hon. J. W. Edgar 

Commissioner of Education 

Texas Education Agency 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. V-1195 

Re: Authority of the 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 to the authority of 

the Commissionef, with the approval of the State Board of Education, in recomputmg the economic index for distribution of local 

fund assignments in the admin%stration of the Foundation School 

Program. The questions you present are paraphrased as follows: 

1. Was it the intention of the Legislature to require that local 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 to be made in the economic index for each of the 

other counties in the State .in order to provide the total 

“of $45,QOO,OOO in local fund assignments1 

3. If in answer to the second question you hold 

that the Commissioner may make adjustmentsfor “sud- 

‘den marked decline in econom$ activity.. would the 

reduction in local fund assignments in a county be paid 

‘out of the Foundation School Fund? 

4, If adjustments 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 the use of the 

latest single publication giving data on the various factors to be utilized and weighted 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 the year lq51-1952 and promulgate such new index to the counties? 

7. May the Commissioner, with Board approval, 

make an adjustment in the 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 to your first question: 

Obligations of school districts to provide financial support for the Foundation School Program were fixed by the 51st LegMature 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 of the 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 the basic 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 

that the 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 than the tax yield 

from the maximum legal levy on the 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 the fact 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 State for each four year period. For this purpm% the total amount of $45,000.0$.0~ must be used just as though 

fhat f& total amount was requiredtobe raised by the State’s lo&al 

dIstr~cte each year. 

Withrespect to your 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 the four year 

period beginning with the 1951-1952 scholastic year. The new index was adopted Mar’ch 5,195l. You,ask if you 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 ccumty as’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 of this Act, shall be used for a period 

‘offour (4) years, beginning with the 1951-52 schoot 

year, and the State Commissioner of Education, sub-. 

ject to the 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 of the State of Texas or.the~Federal Govern- 

-‘m&t. Provided that should there be a sudden marked 

.decline in the economic activity in a county, an adjustment of the county’s ec~onomic index may.be made by 

the ‘State Commissioner 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 to what was meant by the Legislaturq in wkiting this last proviso into the Act Clearly, this 

” - proviso must be read with.aUention focused on the ‘language of t,he 

whole act, particularly i&at of Section 3 of Article 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., 10 S.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 of the courts 

to give effect to every word, phrase and sentence in 

such way as to h+rmonize the meaning of each such 

word, phrase. or sentence with ‘the entire statute or 

: mstrument, if possible.* 

It will be noted from the portion of Section 3 quoted 

above that the Act requires the Commissioner to use 'information 

from the moqt redently available official publications and reports 

of agencies of the State of Texas or the Federal ‘Government.‘ This 

language immediately precedes the proviso. the true meaning of 

which we must ascertain in ordqsr to answer your question. 

In yiew oft the language of this proviso and that of the 

clause which precedes it. and in’the light of the purpose the Legislature sought to accomplish by-the adoption of the Act., we think that 

the effect of the proviso is -to limit 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 in the economic 

.activity in a county” from reliable sources other than -‘the most 

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 not reflect such information. 

This interpretation ia .strengthened by the’ fact that, as 

you have advised, iqformation asp to some of the weighted factors 

is available at four year intervals only, of which fact we must presums the Legislature had knowledge at the time the Act was adopted. 

.hnperial Irr. Co. v. Jayne, 104 Tex. 395, 138 Sew. 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 hfOrmdOR 
Hon. J:W. Edgar. page 5 (V-llq5) 

it might not be possible to compute an index ,accurately indicating 

the taxpaying ability of each-county. ” 

It has been urged by some that the proviso applies not 

to the source of information for the four year ec~onomic index 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 the total $45,000.- 

000.00 basic sum to be charged annually against the State’s local 

districts. or require a recomputation for all counties so as .ta make 

up for the reduction given a single county. 

To so construe the proviso would make the Foundation 

School Program unwieldy, if not unworkable, and would superimpose 

upon the Act a meaning not contemplated by the Legislature. If the 

Act were interpreted to mean that the Commissioner is authoriaed 

or directed to recompute or ‘adjust* the econo;nicindex each.year 

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

We do not believe the lawmaking body contemplated that 

an adjustment of the county economic index would be made more 

,often than every four years. Our view in this is supported by plain 

and unambiguous language found elsewhere in Section 3: 

“The economic index for each county for the pur- 

,pses of this Act shall be used for a period of four (4) 

years, . . .” 

The act confers. no authority upon the Commissioner:to 

recompute the economic index and make.adjustments reflecting ‘sudden marked decline in economic activity’ except to the 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 that local 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 than four years. 

Paragraph 4, of Section’5 of Article VI provides: 

“Provided that if the revenue that would be derived from the legal maximum, local maintenance 
Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 6 (Vill95) 

school tax is less than the ,amount that is assigned to 

a school district according to the economic index, and 

if such property valuation is not less than said 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 that local fund requirements not exceed taxpaying ability, the Legislature also provided in Paragraph 

3 of Section 5 of Article VI: 

“Provided. however, that in any district containing State University-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 the proportion that the 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 

of Article VI which reads: 

“If there has been a marked increase or decrease 

‘in the assessed valuation of a school district within a 

county, and if the County School Board certifies that 

the use oCthe county and school distrikt valuations for 

the preceding year in deteimnining local fund.assignmente to the school districts in the couuty would be inequitable, and recommends a different distribution of 

the county total than that made by the State Commissioner of Education; such recommendations. subject 

to the approval of said Commissioner, shall become 

and be the lawful local fund assignments to such districts.” 

Since the Legislature specifically set the sum of total 

local fund requirements at $45.000.000.00 to be raised by a,Il the 

State’s school districts and set that sum as the total ‘to be used in 

figuring county economic indexes without any provision for recomputation more often than every four years, we are compelled to hold 

that its proviso in Section 3 concerning “sudden marked decline in 

economic activity” relates not to computation of new county economic indexes oftener than every 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 to your 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 the latest official reports available in 

computing the new economic index, butt we find nothing in this or 

any other provision of the 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. It is 

our view, however, from an analysis of thislanguage, that the 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 not fix a definite date for the adoption, release, or publication of 5. new county economic index for the ensuing 

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 

think the index may be recomputed, If the Commissioner and the 

Board determine that the prior’release was premature and that a 

recomputation is necessary in order accurately to calculate the index for each county and to 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 of the Commissioner and the State Board of Education. .,. 

%r answer to your second question answers your seventh question. 

SUMMARY 

The Foundation School Program Act (Senate Bill 

‘116, ch. 334, Acts 51st Leg., 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 to be 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 of the 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 the various 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