Court Opinion

ID: 4137883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 02:30:02.681889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:21:31.143910
License: Public Domain

TEIE   ATTOKNEY             GENERAL
                             OF      TEXAS
                             Au-       11. -
PRICE   DANIEL
‘4ITORNEYGENERAL
                                   August 22, 199

           Bon. L. A. Woods        oplnlon lo. v-889.
           state Superintendent
           Department of Education Re: The directory or mandatory
           Austin, Texas               nature of the provision In
                                       H.B. 651,'51st Leg.; that
                                       school authoritiesshould
                                       have the duty to suspend
                                       or expel members of frater-
           Dear Dr. Woods:             nltles and sororl*ies.
                     Your request for an opinion relating to Sec-
           tion 4 of B.B.:651, Aots oi the Slot Legislature,1949,
           which provides that it should bo the duty o? school au-
           thorltler to suspend or expel from school any pupil rho
           ir a member of a fraternity, sorority or secret society,
           presents the following questIon:
                        "Does this provision make It mandatory
                   that the school authority suspend or expel
                   stndentawho are membersOS iraternltlrs,
                   sororltlrsor secret sooleties,or is It dis-
                   cretloqry vlth the sohool peatom     to mu!-
                   pnd or up.1 rush rtrrdent?
                        E.B. fo. 651, Aetr ot the 51rt k ., R.S. 1949,
            ch. 429, p. 803, ir an Aot eesignod primarlfJ to prehlbit
            public wahoo1 fratomitirs, sororltisaand secret aocle-
            tlrm ir all pub110 rahmls~er this Stata, uoept anlvor-
            rltlor auP oollo 08. Se&Ion 1 of the Act prohibits such
            orgmiratlens. !I   et&Ion 2 definea suoh organlutlms to
            bo.thtso oomposed vholl or in pad ot publlo rohool pu-
            pi111or publla rohoelr g *low Dhi mnk of oolloge or dun-
            lo* college rhioh rr*okto porpmlato    tboM.lvw by taking
            ln additionalumborr -08 the psplls onrolled in such
            SCHOOL  0rith0 k816 0r the ae~irioa 0r it8 rrerber8hip
            rather than   upon the -8,  rhoior of any ?upll In the
            school who Is quallried by the ruler OS the school to
            fill the speoial aim6 of the organlaatlon. Section 3
            cleclarrsa publio rchool fraternity,sorority or secret
            society to be an organlmtlon lnlmlcal to the public good,
            and Se&Ion 4, vhloh relates directly to the question pre-
            sented, provides as Iollovr:
                      :f<,i   i

               i L
                                  I

Hon. L. A. Woods, page 2 (V-9)

          "It should be the duty of Sohool Dlroc-
     tom, Boards of Education, School Instroctors
     and other corporateauthority managing and
     controllingany of the Pub110 Schools o? this
     State vlthln the prorlslonr of .tUs Act, to
     suspeml or expel iron the school under their
     aomtrol any pupil of such sahool who shall be
     o12remalaamsmbor of, or who ahall join or
     pomlso to join, or who shall baaore plo ld
     to boom.4 a member of, or vho r-hallrello
                                             2 t
     any other person to join, proalso to join, or
     be pie ed to become ~amember of any such
     Public3 chool Fraternity, or Sodoz4ty, or
     Seoret Society. Providing that the above re-
     strictions rhall not be construed to a ly to
     agenclwJ ?Qr Pub110wel?me, vim FJoyrceuts,
     RI-Y Olrl Rtwmrvos, DeMolay RUnbow girls,
     hnkleu       Cl&m, and Sohoiarrhlp Soeleties,
     and ether kindriNledmeational organisatlons
     sponsored by the State or Batillnaleducation
     authorlt5.es."
          Section 5 of the Act under consltlemtl~ mkos
it unlavful for any person not in any such school to so-
lleit any pupil to join or pledge suah organlsatlon.
S~otlcpr6 ai the Aat contains the penalty olause.
           In 3 Suth8rlaadStatutory Conrtruotlon (3rd
M.   1943) 79, it 18 SallP

          "It CM be stated a8 a general proposl-
     tlon that, as regards the question of manda-
     tory and directory operation, the courts
     vi11 apply that constructionwhich best car-
     ries into offset the purpose o? the statute
     under consldera.tlou.To this end, the
     courts my lnqulra into the purpose behind
     the enactment of the legislationrequlrlng
     oonstroctlonas one of the firat steps in
     treating the problem. The ordinary meaning
     o? language my be overruled to effoetuate
     the purpose o? the statute,
          n . 0 ‘ It la always to be presumed that
     the legislaturewas motivated by some purpose
     In the enactment of a statute, 80 that l? one
     construotlonwould render It lneffeotlve,the
     other should manl?estly be adopted."
Hon. L. A. Wooda, Page 3 (V-889)

          Thlr $8~8 a&hoi  states In conmotion with
statutes lmposlng orlmlnal sanctlons or penalties that
"the rule ha8 been stated with particular clarity that
'Where a leglslatlvoprovlslon Is followed by a penal-
ty for failure to observe It, the provl8lon 18 manda-
tory.: This may be seen as a part of the gpeT;up;r:-
lem 0s lmplled oo~oqu8no48 0r 10 lalatl0n.
laud Statutory Conrtrrrotlon(3rd 86; 1943) 110.       -
           There 18 no absolute test or lafalllble rule
by tich a ranbrtocy rtatute or provlrlon my be dlstln-
@shed from one whi.ahIs merely directory. In each
ca84 the question Is on0 of rtatutory conrtruotlonto
be judlclallydetermined aooordlng to the intent of the
Leglcllaturo frms a oonsld4rationof the entire rtatuto,
Its nature, ob dot end rubject matter, red the OMEO-
quences  that v ill~result'irama      tlcular con8tructlon.
Burton v. lct3ulre 3 S.W.24 576'&.       Clr. App. 1927)
  ??'dB tQn       Shire    41 S Vi24 238 (Coma. App. 19h);
iayle v?Ale&der       75 i.U.24'706 (Ter. Clv. App. 1934);
  9 Tex. Jur. 33, &tutoS,    i300.14.
          Ia the ease of FBR~ v. Lees Bror. 9.9. Co.,
3 So.2d 632 (La. Sup. 194r), the Court stated:
          'The wore fshould is the imperfect 0s
     the vord '83~11';it 18 the -4t4m   0s th4
     *or4 'shazkl';'e&ml4 I‘ u8ea 88 8n amctli-
     ary vepb either   ia thr part tense c   oondl-
     tlunal prorent. It8 ryamymir    '0 t'; Both
                                      "$Ion.'
     of these Vord6 alearly Imply obllga
         The primary purpose  of the Act In question is
to prohibit a public roheo2 fraternity, rororlty or se-
oret society and It $8 evident that the Act contemplates

being merely dlreotry.
           In vie8 Of the feregolng ml88 of construotlon,
and con614erlag  ths Aot a8 8 wholo, Its nature and object,
Ron, L. A. Woods, page 4 (V- 8&)

the only rearonable constxwctlonthat aaa be placed on
Section 4 18 that the tar- thereof are nndatmy.

          The provisions of Section 4 of H.B. 651,
     Acts of the Slat Legislature,1949, relating
     to the 4XptiBi~  BP 8UB~OZl‘iBll
                                    Of pupil8 p4P-
     tlclpatlng In secret societies,sororltl4s,
     and ?rat4rnltles0s public schools 0s the Ngh
     8aheol level and below are Pandatory.
                                    Yours   very   truly,

                               ATTORBRY
                                      MfKBRAL         OF TBXAS

                               -L

                                       ml%011 wal&wp
                                               Aseletut