Attorney General Opinion JM-0370

JIM MAlTOX Attorney General Supreme Court Building P. 0. Box 12548 Austl”, TX. 78711.2545 5121475-2501 Telex 910/874-1357 Telecopier 51214750255 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dallas, TX. 752024508 21417428944 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 915/53534u /- ,1 Texas. Suite 700 Houston, TX. 77002-3111 713/223-5888 606 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 SW747-5238 4309 N. Tenth, Suite B McAllen, TX. 78501-1885 5121682.4547 200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 San Antonio, TX. 782052797 51212254191 An Equal OpportunitYI Affirmative Action Employer The Attorney General of Texas Cctober 25, 1985 Honorable Wilhelmina Delco ahainnan Higher Education Cornittee Texas House of Representatives P. 0. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 7876'9 Opinion No. JM-370 ue: Interpretation of "teaching assistant" and "research assistant" in section 54.063 of the Education Code Dear Representative :Delco: You requested an interpretation of section 54.063 of the Texas Education Code as it was renumbered and amended by Eouse Bill No. 1147 of the Sixty-ninth Legislature. Section 54.063 waives the payment of nonresident tuition for certain persons who are not residents of Texas. Prior to the Sixty-ninth Legislature, section 54.051(o) of the Texas Education Code waived nonresident tuition for a teaching assis- tant, research assl.stant, or other student employee of an institution of higher education, along with his spouse and children, if the student employee w,w employed at least one-half time in a position that related to his degree program. House Bill No. 1147 restricted that waiver to resl?arch assistants and teaching assistants, deleting from the waiver "'other student employees." Section 54.063 now provides that: A teaching assistant or research assistant of any institutio:n of higher education and the spouse and children of such a teaching assistant or research assistant are entitled to register in a state institution of higher education by paying the tuition fees and other fees or charges required for Texas residents under Section 54.051 of this code, without regard to the length of time the assistant has resided in Texas, if the assistant is employed at least one-half time in a teaching or researc:h assistant position which relates to the assil;tant's degree program under rules and regulations established by the employer institution. The issue befsxce us is the meaning of "teaching assistants or research assistants" and whether those terms, as used by the legislature in sect.ion 54.063, include only students whose jobs have p. 1696 Eonorable Wilhelmina Delco -' Page 2 (JM-370) the specific title of "teaching assistant" or "research assistant." We conclude that those terms are not intended to indicate titles of positions but are descriptive of the functions of certain university employees who are entitled 1:o the waiver. The dominant considel:ation in construing a statute is the legislative intent. Where t:he intent is apparent from the words of the statute, it is not necessary to analyze the extrinsic evidence of legislative intent. See M~.nton v. Frank, 545 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. - -- 1976); Calvert v. British-A$rican Oil Producing Co., 397 S.W.2d 839, 842 (Tex. 1965). Where the language of the statute is ambiguous. the legislative intent may be cle;certained by looking beyond the statute. See Huntsville Independent School District v. McAdams, 221 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1949). Statutes shozld be construed in light of the circum- stances existing at the time of their enactment, the evil sought to be corrected, and the purpose ::o be accomplished. See Texas k N.O.R. Co. v. Railroad Comrmission, 200 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tz 1947); Wortham v. Walker, 128 S.W.2d 1138, ll!iO (Tex. 1939). The Code Construction Act, V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, 93.03, provides that, in construing a statute, a court may consider, among other matters, the object sought to be attained, the circumstances under which the statute was enacted, and legislative history. House Bill No. 1147 II; a comprehensive bill relating to tuition and fees at institutions of higher education. It sets forth the state's policy on tuition and constitutes the first major revision of tuition for students in many years. The bill was amended on the house floor to limit several waivers of nonresident tuition which had been granted to persons who are ,not residents of this state. Discussion on the floor amendment in quest:Lon indicates: (1) that the amendment dealt with three areas where waivers were being abused, one being that the mere fact that a person from out-of-state wants to work fo:c a university should not exempt the person from nonresident tuition; (2) that the amendment to Rouse Bill No. 1147 eliminated only "other employees," leaving a waiver for teaching assistants, research assistants, and their spouses and children; and (3) that "by keeping the academics," out-of- state residents who bring something of benefit and value to our institutions would be protected. See House Floor Debate, March 19, 1985, Second Reading of Rouse Bill No. 1147, 69th Legislature. The institutions of hL8her education in this state use numerous and different names as joI1 titles for the positions held by student p. 1697 Honorable Wilhelmina Delco -' Page 3 (JM-370) employees. Normally, in d~rtermining the character or nature of an entitv. a conrt is guided by substance and not by a name. See _-___, 1 - ----- - Widdleton v. Texas ______ - .; ~nver & 1.1. ht, 185 S.W. 556, !hTex. Civ. App. - 562 (Tex. 1916); Liz v. Emett, 526 S.W.2d 288, :!' Tyler 1975, no writ) We find no indication that the legislature intended the waiver of nonresident tuition to apply to a student assistant only if the title of the student's job is "teaching assistant" or "research assistant." It is our opinion that the legislature used the terms teaching assistant and research assistant in section 54.063 as descriptive terms identifying the duties and responsibilities of the student jobs that entitle out-of-state fitudents to register at Texas universities on the payment of resident I:uition. It also is our opinion that the legislature's purpose in granting such tuition incentives to nonresident students is the enhancement of the quality of the academic assistants who perform important scholarly roles in the academic progr,ams of institutions of higher education. We conclude that the waiver of nonresident tuition in section 54.063 is intended to apply to stu(Lent assistants with academic duties in all academic programs of a unirersity. whether the programs are teaching or research, if the assistant is employed at least one-half time in a position that relates to the assistant's degree program under rules and regulations established, by the employer institution. The waiver in section 54.063 is not i,ntended to apply to student employees who assist in auxiliary enterprLses or are employed in nonacademic activi- ties at a university. SUMMARP The terms "teaching assistant" and "research assistant," as used in section 54.063 of the Texas Education Code, are not intended as titles of positions that determine the entitlement of nonresident student employees to a waiver of nonresident tuition at institutions of higher education but are intended to describe the academic positions~ of the student employees who are entitled to such a waiver under that section. JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney General p. 1698 Honorable Wilhelmina Delco -' Page 4 (JM-370) DAVID R. RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General ROBERT GRAY Special Assistant Attorney General RICX GILPIN Chairman, Opinion Committee Prepared by Nancy Sutton Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Chairman Colin Carl Susan Garrison Jirm Moellinger Jennifer Riggs Nancy Sutton Sarah Woelk Bruce Youngblood p. 1699