Opinion ID: 1723051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excess CED funds

Text: The Somerset districts argue that the Commissioner's rule is invalid because its provisions for the distribution of excess CED funds are inconsistent with, or contrary to, section 4.15 of Senate Bill 7. [39] The districts point out that section 4.15(a) requires the transfer of excess funds in the manner provided by the Commissioner, while section 4.15(b), which governs other assets, and section 4.15(c), which governs contracts and other liabilities, both require transfer in the manner and amounts  provided by the Commissioner (emphasis added). We must presume, the districts argue, that the omission of the phrase and amounts in section 4.15 was deliberate. See Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 540 (Tex.1981). According to the districts, the Legislature intended the excess funds to be transferred in the amounts determined by applying Senate Bill 351, because this Court's injunction allowed Senate Bill 351 to remain in place until September 1, 1993the day after the excess funds were to be distributed. See Edgewood III, 826 S.W.2d at 523 n. 42. We disagree. Although section 4.15(a) does not use the word amounts, it clearly contemplates that the manner provided for the distribution of funds will include the determination of amounts because the latter part of the section sets out an exception for the allocation of penalties. If the Commissioner had no discretion regarding the determination of amounts, the restriction regarding penalties would not be an exception at all; it would be a wholly separate responsibility. The more plausible interpretation is that the Commissioner has discretion in adopting a rule for the allocation of excess funds among school districts, except that penalties must be allocated in the manner specified. The other language in section 4.15 does not justify the Somerset districts' reading of the statute. The words and amounts were apparently included in paragraphs (b) and (c) to clarify that the Commissioner was authorized to determine the value of all items transferred. Non-monetary assets, contracts, and other liabilities may lack clear monetary valuesunlike funds, which are necessarily expressed in dollar amounts. In regard to the date specified for the transfer of funds, the statute must be read in light of the immediately preceding provision, section 4.14 of Senate Bill 7, which abolished every CED effective September 1, 1993. Section 4.15(a) simply provides that the last act required of CEDsthe transfer of their fundswas to take place on the last day of their existence.