Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-684 Page: 3 of 4
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
S
Honorable Roy Blake - Page 3 (JM-684)
gifts or donations. Attorney General Opinions H-1309, H-1180 (1978);
0-4681 (1942). The legislature has explicitly conferred such authority
on several state agencies. See e.g., V.T.C.S. arts. 4413d-1 (Office
of State-Federal Relations); 4413(32f) (Texas Closeup Board); 4413(35)
(Commission on Fire Protection Personnel Standards and Education);
4413(44) (Governor's Commission on Physical Fitness); 4413(47d) (Texas
National Research Laboratory Commission); 4413(49) (Criminal Justice
Policy Council; Criminal Justice Coordinating Council); 4413(51)
(Interagency Council on Sex Offender Treatment). In each instance
cited above, the relevant state agency was given explicit authority to
accept gifts.
The primary consideration in construing a statute is giving
effect to legislative intent. Mincon v. Frank, 545 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.
1976); Calvert v. British-American Oil Producing Co., 397 S.W.2d 839
(Tex. 1965). The intention of the legislature should be determined by
examining the entire act rather than isolated portions of the act.
City of Houston v. Morgan Guaranty International Bank, 666 S.W.2d 524
(Tex. App. - Houston [list Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Read as a
whole, article 6145-14, V.T.C.S., clearly contemplates that the board
possesses the authority to accept gifts or donations.
Section 6 of the act confers authority on the architect and the
curator to develop a program to accept gifts. Section 8 confers like
authority on the board. Additionally, section 8 explicitly confers
authority on the board to "solicit" gifts and money. Generally,
administrative agencies have by implication such powers as are
necessary to effectuate the objectives of those powers expressly
granted to them. City of Corpus Christi v. Public Utility Commission,
572 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1978); State v. Jackson, 376 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.
1964). We conclude that implicit in the board's power to "solicit" is
the power to accept gifts. "Solicit" has been defined to mean
to approach for something; to ask for the purpose
of receiving; to endeavor to obtain by asking; to
importune or implore for the purpose of obtaining;
to awake or incite to action by acts or conduct
intended to and calculated to incite the giving.
People ex rel. Friedman v. Framer, 139 N.Y.S.2d 331, 337 (N.Y. App.
Term 1954); see also People v. McCormack, 169 N.Y.S.2d 139, 142 (N.Y.
App. Term 1957); Schmid v. Langenberg, 526 S.W.2d 940, 944 (Mo. App.
1975). It would make no sense for the legislature to empower the
board to "solicit" gifts but then not empower the board to accept a
gift when the solicitation is successful. We will not construe a
statute so as to ascribe to the legislature an unreasonable result if
the statute is reasonably susceptible of a construction that will not
accomplish such a result. Anderson v. Penix, 161 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.
1942); Trimmier v. Carlton, 296 S.W. 1070 (Tex. 1927). Accordingly,p. 3169
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-684, text, April 23, 1987; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth273122/m1/3/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.