Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1968 )


Menu:
  •            THE     ATIKBRNEY        GENERAL
    OFI'EXAS
    Honorable J. W. Edgar             Opinion No. M-   262
    Commissioner of Education
    Texas Education Agency            Re:   Whether the State Board
    Austin, Texas                           of Education has the au-
    thority to make an adjust-
    ment in the economic index
    and/or local fund assign-
    ment of Hill County, and
    Dear Dr. Edgar:                         related question.
    You have requested the opinion of this office regard-
    ing the above matter and in this connection have provided us
    with the following:
    "The 1968-69 /ETconomic7index determined for Hill
    County (.169)-reflectx a 13.4 percentage increase
    over its index for 1967-68.This results in an ap-
    proximate $39,000 increase in the local fund assign-
    ment to Bill County for 1968-69, which comprises
    twelve school districts. An estimated $6,000 of
    this increase in local fund assignment is attribut-
    able to the increase in the cost of the Foundation
    School Program from $154.8million in 1967-68 to
    $159.6 million for 1968-69. The remaining increase
    is quite probably attributable in large part to the
    location and operation of the Neuhoff Brothers Feed
    Lot in Hill County beginning 1962, and the inclusion
    of th,esales of its products
    farm operation) in the U.S.D:A!? ?&gld',%??l-
    Agriculture and its Statistical Reporting Service,
    Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, for
    the years lg64, 1965, 1966--the most current federal
    and/or state statistics available.
    "Because of the unusual increase in its economic
    index for 1968-69 and further increases anticipated
    in 1969-70 occasioned in large part by such Neuhoff
    feeder operations, a brief (dated May 21, 1968) in
    -126&
    .
    Hon. J. W. Edgar, Page 2 (M- 262)
    the nature of a report and application was
    filed on behalf of the twelve school districts
    in Hill County asking me and the State Board
    of Education for relief; viz., an adjustment
    in their economic index. It sets out the
    reasons, grounds and reviews the laws and au-
    thorities submitted in support of the request.
    Transmitted herewith is a copy of that brief
    which is self-explanatcry.
    I, . . .
    "On motions duly made and voted, the State Board
    of Education has directed me, in connection there-
    with to submit and request an opinion from your
    office on the following questions:
    "1. Does the State:Board of Education (Texas Edu-
    cation Agency) have the authority to make an ad-
    justment in the economic index and/or local fund
    assignment of Hill County?
    "2 . In making an economic index adjustment or in
    computing an original index does the State Board
    of Education have the right to determine that a
    cattle feed lot is an industrial operation rather
    than agriculture, and accordingly direct an ad-
    justment by deletion of the income figured on
    the feed lot (as best it can be determined) from
    Agriculture income totals used in computing the
    index?"
    Section 3, Article 2922-16, Vernon's Civil Statutes, re-
    quires the State Commissioner of Education to calculate an eco-
    nomic index for all the counties in this State subject to the
    approval of the State Board of Education.
    As we understand the facts, the Commissioner of Educa-
    tion compiled the economic index, which was approved by the
    State Board of Education in March of this year; and the School
    Districts of Hill county have made an application to the Commis-
    sioner and the Board for an adjustment of the index, alleging
    that such index as to Hill County is inequitable and does not
    accomplish the plan and purposes contemplated by Article 2922-16.
    Your first question inquires as to the authority of the State
    Board of Education to make an adjustment in the economic index
    and/or local fund assignment oftHill County.
    -1269-
    Hoti.J. W. Edgar, Page 3 (M- 262)
    Under the facts, it is the opinion of this office that
    until such time as State funds are distributed to the respec-
    tive school districts In the State for the current year, the
    Board has the authority to make such an adjustment. The ac-
    tion heretofore taken with regard to the index is not final in
    the sense that it cannot Abemodified or adjusteh by the Board
    if the Board deems such modification or adjustment proper in
    order to accomplish equity and to carr out the true legisla-
    tive intent. 2 Am.Jur.2d 290, Sets. 463-484,Administrative
    Law; 2 Am.Jur.2d 330,Sets. 522-523, Administrative Law;
    Superior Oil Co. v. Board of Trustees of Magnolia Independent
    School District, 410 S .W .2a-!?P4(Tex.Civ.App. lgbb, writ ref.
    n.r.e.)
    In computing the economic index under Article 2922-16,
    Section 3, the Board is confined to data taken from the most
    recently available official publications and reports of Federal
    and State agencies. Although being thusly confined, it is the
    opinion of this office that the Board may consider an official
    State or Federal publications or reports; and if the
    -4 oard
    deems it proper or necessary in considering the question of an
    adjustment, it has the authority to arrange for and make avail-
    able to itself other and further such cfficlal reports and
    publications as it may deem necessary in order to properly and
    wisely make Its decisions. This same principle is true with
    regard to the compilation of economic indices in the future.
    In regard to your second question concerning whether you
    might classify some of the business activities in a different
    category, it is our opinion that a cattle feed’lot business may
    not be,legally classified industrial rather than agricultural.
    Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines agriculture
    as follows:
    “Agriculture:
    “l(a): The science or art of cultivating the
    .eoll, harvesting crops, and raising livestock,
    tillage, husbandry, farming.
    ” b): The sclence’or art oi the     production of
    p lents and animals useful to man   and In varying
    degrees,the preparation of these    products for
    man’s use and their dlspoeal (as    by.marketing).”
    The Supreme Court of Kansas held in the case of Fields v. Anderson
    
    396 P.2d 276
    (1964), that a cattle feed lot was
    nature ra ther than induetrial. We have been tan-
    able to find any authority to the contrary.
    -1270-
    Hon. J. W. Edgar, Page 4 (M- 262)
    SUMMARY
    Under the circumstances, the State Board of
    Education has the authority to make an ad-
    justment in the economic index and/or local
    fund assignment of Hill County before a dis-
    bursement of State Funds has been made. In
    compiling the economic index and In consider-
    ing future economic indices, the Board is con-
    fined to data from the most recently available
    official reports and publications of State and
    Federal agencies, but the Board may arrange for
    such other and further reports and publications
    as it may deem necessary.
    The Board does not have the authority to clas-
    sify a cattle feed lot as an industrial oper-
    ation rather than agricultural.
    truly yours,
    vY
    Prepared by Alfred
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman
    Kerhs Taylor, Co-Chairman
    Brock Jones
    John Reeves
    Ralph Rash
    Roger Tyler
    A. J. CARUBBI, JR.
    Executive Assistant
    -1271-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-262

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1968

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017