*x-rORxEzY OEN&RAl. August 28, 1970 

Hon. Bevington Reed 

Commissioner 

Opinion No. M- 672 

Coordinating Board, Texas College Re: Questions regarding laying 

and University System out of service areas by the 

Sam Houston Building Coordinating Board and anAustin, Texas nexatlon of territory to a 

junior college district 

under the provisions of 

Acts 1969, 61st Le lslature, Chapter 788 $ Chapter 

Dear Mr. Reed: 2815h-lb, V.C.S. ) 

Your letter requesting an opinion from this office 

concerning the abbve captioned matter presents this factual statement: 

“On January 15, 1968, the Coordinating Board 

adopted a plan for development of the junior 

colleges In Texas. That plan, as published in 

Coordinating Board Policy Paper #2, The Development of Community Junior Colleges in Texas, says 

in part: 

“‘Having determined minimum student enrollment criteria, and recognizing that Texas has not 

only centers of heavy population concentration 

but also large areas with sparse population, the 

Coordinating Board recommends that for community 

junior college purposes, the State be divided Into 

fifty-three geographic regions having certain 

student population characteristics.' 

" A geographic region does not represent a 

tax district; nor does it define an area in which 

students must attend a college located thereinfi,to 

the exclusion of movement across "lines drawn. 

“The region does represent that area from 

which most of the community junior college students 

should and will come; and represents as well an 

area wherein at least one community junior college district 

-3205- 
, 

Hon. Bevington Reed, page 2 (M-672) 

is feasible during the forthcoming two decades. 

It is important to understand that the boundaries 

of each of the fifty-three proposed regions are 

flexible and will be subject to change at such 

time as change seems reasonable and practicable." 

Based upon these facts, you ask the following questions: 

"May this action of the Coordinating Board 

be construed as laying out service areas for 

assisting junior colleges as specified in Chapter 

788 of the General and Special Laws passed by the 

6lst Legislature, Regular Session, 19691 

"If the action of the Coordinating Board is 

not so construed, can a junior college district be 

expanded under Chapter 788 of the General and Special 

Laws as cited?" 

A question has been raised at the outset as to whether 

the Board intended its plan to be construed as laying out service 

areas for assisting junior colleges. It is our conclusion that 

such a question cannot be considered. The Legislature, as will 

be herein later discussed, made its own interpretation of the 

Board's action and enacted into law Article 2815h-lb, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes, expressly recognizing the authority of the Board 

to lay out service areas for assisting junior colleges. Such 

legislative Interpretations or constructions in a later act of 

an existing law are persuasive and entitled to great weight as 

showing legislative intent in the passage of the act under consideration. 53 Tex.Jur.2d 265-266, Statutes, Sec. 178. l?urthermore, for the purpose of ascertaining intent, it is the general 

rule of law that a statute may not be Impeached by paroleevidence 

or oral testimony of individual legislators, officers, or members 

of the legislative body. 50 Am.Jur.2d 120, Statutes, Sec. 130. Thus, 

for example the testimony of a legislator as to the intent of an 

enactment passed by the Legislature of which he was a member is 

incompetent. Barlow v. Jones, 37 Ariz. ,396, 294 Pac. 1106 (1930). 

It is our opinion that in any event the intention of the Board Is 

expressed in the wording of the instrument. 

As the Texas Supreme Court stated in Webster, et al. v. 

Texas &I Pacific Motor Transport Co., et al., 146 Tex. 131, 166 

S.W.2d 73 (1942) : 

II 

. . . it was the intention of the Legislature 

that the Railroad Commission. . e should be composed 

of three members, and that the Commission, acting as 

-3206- 
Ron. Bevington Reed, page 3 (M-672) 

such, and not the individual Commissioners, 

should have the authority to grant or refuse 

applications. . . . 

"It is a well established rule in this State 

. . . that where the Legislature has committed a 

matter to a board . . . or other administrative 

agency, such board . . . must act thereon as a bod 

at a stated meeting . . .' (Emphasis adde + 

Article 2919e-2, Vernon's Civil Statutes, creating the 

Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, became 

effective September 1, 196.5. Section 1 states in part that the 

purpose of the act is to establish in the field of higher education 

in Texas an agency to provide leadership and coordinat, on for the 

Texas higher education system to the end that the State may achieve 

excellence for a college education of its youth through efficient 

and effective utillsation and concentration of all available resources and the elimination of costly duplications In program 

offerings, faculties and physical plants. 

Such Article confers numerous and extensive powers on 

the Board (Sections 10, 18, 19 and 23.) For example, the Board 

is given authority to define a junior college, develop and publish 

criteria to be used for a basis for determining the need for 

changing the classification of any public institution of higher 

education and for determining the need for new publio colleges, 

and classify and prescribe the role and scope for each public 

institution and hear applications from the institution for changes 

in such classification, etc. The Board is also given responsibility 

for adopting policies, enacting regulations and establishing general 

rules necessary for carrying out the duties with respect to public 

junior colleges placed upon it by the Legislature. 

Nearly three years later on January 15, 1968, the Coordinatir 

Board adopted and published the plan above mentioned and related map. 

Chapter 788, Senate Bill No. 739, pa e 

61st Legislature of Texas, Regular Session, 8 

2332, Acts of the 

19 9 (codified by Vernon 

as Article 2815h-lb), became effective about a year and a half later 

on September 1, 1969. It permits Inclusion of territory In the 

boundaries of a junior college district, for junior college Rurposes, 

if such territory Is (1) contiguous to the district and (2) has 

been laid out by the Coord$nating Board . . . as a service area for 

assisting junior colleges. Such Chapter provides the manner for 

determining the question of such boundary change, that is, by petition 

and election, It further states that it is cumulative and wholly 

-3207- 
. , 

Hon. Bevington Reed, page 4 (M-672) 

sufficient authority for such inclusion of ttrritory. The 

emergency requiring its immediate effect is . . . the fact 

that additional and adequate authority is required for changing 

the boundaries of junior college districts, and the fact that 

such changes are urgently needed . . . 

We think that Articles 2919e-2 and 2815h-lb, considered 

In the light of Policy Paper #2, must be construed together, each 

enactment in reference to the other , and effect given to all the 

provisions of each act. See 53 Tex.Jur.2d, 280, Statutes, Sec. 186. 

Otherwise, the authority of the Coordinating Board to lay out service 

areas is questionable?, and the Legislature in enacting the provision 

in Article 2815h-lb, hat been laid out by the Coordinating Board 

as a service area, has done a useless or futile thing until 

;hat'Article is amended or the Legislature specifically grants the 

Board such power. This is true, because Article 2919e-2 nowhere 

does so, and Article 2815h-lb cannot, because the power is neither 

expressed in the caption nor germane to the subject, except as an 

annexation requirement. See Constitution of Texas, Art. III, 

Sec. 35. Moreover, Policy Paper #2 would be rendered meaningless 

and violence would be done to any proceeding had under Article 

2815h-lb. 

However, Article 2919e-2 expressed its general Intent, 

purposes and objectives, and the Coordinating Board thereafter 

adopted Policy Paper #2. While "It Is true that laws speak 

prospectively ‘unless the contrary is clearly indicated” 

(Freeman v. Terrell, 115 Tex. 530, 284 S.W. 946 (1926), a subsequent Legislature enacted Article 2815h-lb and clearly 

employed the East tense in referring to ter:ltory which ‘has 

been laid out as a service area; and also the rule is 

that a statute speaks as of the time at which it-takes effect.” 

Moorman v. Terrell, 109 Tex. 173, 202 S.W. 727 (1918). Since 

P 11 P #2 and its map had been adopted and published 

bzfo% ttgeiegislature enacted Article 2815h-lb, it may be presumed 

to have known the construction placed on Article 291qe-2 by the 

Coordinating Board in assuming the power to adopt and publish 

Policy Paper #2 and its map. As stated in Railroad Commission v. 

T & N. 0. R, Co., 42 S.W. 2d 1091 (Tex. Civ. App., 1931, error ref.): 

“Another general rule of statutory construction 

p&id 

Is that the interpretation which has been 

on a statute by the officers or governmental 

department charged with carrying out . . . the terms 

of the law will be accorded die consideration by the 

courts In construfng the law. 

-3208- 
I . 

Hon. Bevington Reed, page 5 (M-672) 

See also 53 Tex. Jur.2d, Statutes, pages 

pages 265, 266, Sec. 178. 

276, 277, Sec. 183 and 

the amendment 

ting Board. 

opinion is not to be construed as restricting 

or rescission of Policy Paper #2 by the CoordlnaSUMMARY 

The plan of the Coordinating Board, State 

Therefore, in our opinion, the action of the Coordinsting Board in adopting Policy Paper #2 may be construed as 

laying out service areas to assist junior colleges, and junior 

college districts may be expanded under Article 2815h-lb. 

However, this 

College and University System, for development 

of the junior colleges in Texas may be construed 

as laying out service areas for assisting junior 

colleges as provided for in Article 2815h-lb, V.C.S., 

and a junior college district is authorized to be 

expanded under the provis s of such statute. 

9 very tru , 

c‘i52 

:a 

MARTIN 

General of Texas 

Prepared by Linward Shivers 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

Glenn Brown 

Ray McGregor 

Rick Fisher 

S. J. Aronson 

MEADE F. GRlFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-3209-