, .,. I

,



# TheAttorney GeneralofTexas
December 20, 1977

Honorable DonAdams Chairman, Administration Opinion No. H-1107 Committee The Senate of Austin, Texas Re: Whether section

theState ofTexas 16.056(f) Education Code, enacted in the regular session of the 65th Legislature was repealed in the subse-

_ Dear Senator Adams: quent special session.
You have askedwhether section 16.056(f) of the Education Code, as enacted by the regular session of the 65th Legislature, was repealed in the subsequent special session.
House Bill 612,Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 377, at 1029, enacted onMay 29, 1977,provides, in section 23:

Section 16.056,Texas Education Code, as amended, is amended by adding Subsection (f)to read as follows:

n(fl Indetermining theplacement of distributive education teachers under theTexas Public Education Compensation Plan, ayear of approved work experience shall be considered equivalent to ayear of teaching experience."
House Bill 612became effective on June 10, 1977. On July 15, 1977, in a special session, theLegislature enacted Senate Bill 1,Acts 1977, 65th Leg., 1stC.S., ch. 1, at 11. Senate Bill 1 states that one of itspurposes is the "amending [of] [slection 16.056, relating to salaries of school personnel." Section 4of Senate Bill 1provides:

p. 4531Honorable Don Adams -Page 2 (H-1107)

Section 16.056, Texas Education Code, as amended, is revised to read as follows:

. . . . There follow subsections (a)-(i),which amend portions of former subsections (a)-(d),and add anumber of newprovisions. The language added as subsection (flin the regular session is not found in anypart of the amended section 16.056, or elsewhere in Senate Bill 1.
InAttorney General Opinion H-788 (1976),we held that the omission of a subsection from the revision of a section of the Education Code acted torepeal the deleted subsection. We based this conclusion upon thewell established principles that "the latest expression of legislative intent supersedes its predecessor," and that "[aln amendment operates to repeal any provision of the original act or section that is omitted." Id. at 2-3. See State v. Easley, 404S.W.2d 296, 300 (Tex. 1966) State v.Andrews, 20Tex. 230 (Tex.1857); Commercial Standard Fire &Marine Co. v. Comm'r of Insurance, 429 S.W.2d 930, 933 (Tex.Civ. App. --Austin 1966, nowrit). Where an amendatory act sets out the original section as amended in its entirety, using thephrase "to read as follows," and fails to reenact somepart of the original or amendments thereto, the omitted portions are considered repealed. State v. Andrews, supra; Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Lennox, 296 S.W. 325 (Tex.Civ. App. --Texarkana 1927, nowrit); 1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction 9 22.32 at 186-187 14th ed. 1972). The section tobe amended isclearly identified as "section 16.056, Texas Education Code, as amended." Section 16.056 was added to the Education Code in 1975 as apart of a comprehensive revision of chapter 16. Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 334, at 877. The only previous amendment to the section was that enacted by section 23ofHouse Bill 612 in the Regular Session of the 65th Legislature. Thus, the reference to a revision of section 16.056 "as amended" can only refer to that section as amended byActs 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 377, at 1029. It is generally presumed that every word in a statute isused fora purpose. Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 19751. While the special session amendment could have been more specific in referring to theprevious amendment, the language used appears torefer to the sole amendment to section 16.056 in force at that time.

p. 4532, - ‘I

Honorable Don Adams -Page 3 (H-1107)

Finally, another rule of statutory construction supports our conclusion. The special session amendment of section 16.056 purports ,tobe a comprehensive revision of the entire subject matter. This is indicated by the use of the **term** "revised" in describing what is intended tobe done. It is **also** demonstrated by inspection of the revision and the extensive changes and additionsmade. The very comprehensiveness of such an act gives strona imolication of a leaislative intent to reneal former statutory-law upon the sub;ect. Bryan v. Sundberq 5Tex. 418, 424 (1849);Meek v.Wheeler County, 125 S.W.2d 331: 334 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo 1939). aff'd, 144S.W.2d 885 (Tex. 1940); Luse v:-City of Dallas, 131.S.W.2d.1079 (Tex.Civ. App. -- Dallas 1939,writ ref'd); 1ASutherland, Statutory Construction 9 23.13 at 238-239. This rule operates to repeal other statutes by **im** plication. We believe the reason for itapplies with at least equal force in the case of aprevious amendment omitted in a comprehensive revision of aparticular section which purports to cover the entire subject **matter.** While it ispossible that the omission of former subsection (f)was inadvertent, we have nobasis onwhich to conclude that its deletion "did not indicate the intention of the Legislature to repeal that statute." Attorney General Opinion H-788 (1976) **at 2.**  See State ex rel. Gebhardt-v. Superior Court forKing County,131 P.2d 943, 949-50 (Wash. 1942). Accordingly, it is our oninion thatTexas courts would orobablv rule that section 16.056(f) of theEducation Code, ) as enacted by the regular session of the 65thLegislature, was repealed in the subsequent special session.
SUMMARY

Texas **courts** would probably rule that section 16.056(f) of theEducation Code, as enacted by the regular session of the 65th Legislature, was repealed in the subsequent special session.

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas

p. 4533Honorable Don Adams -Page 4 (H-1107)

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

BERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jst

-

p. 4534