Texas Attorney General Opinion: M-652 Page: 4 of 6
6 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. Manuel DeBusk, page 4
Board has no implied powers or functions. By this statement
we do not mean that the Coordinating Board does not have im-
plied authority to do all things necessary to carry out ef-
fectively a power or function specifically delegated to it
in the act, for certainly it has. Terrell v. Sparks, 104
Tex. 191, 135 S.W. 519 (1911). But, by the language of
Section 3, the Legislature has stated, in effect, that the
maxim of expression unius est exclusio alterius shall apply
to limit the functions and duties of the Coordinating Board
to those specifically enumerated in the act.
It would serve no purpose other than to unduly
lengthen this opinion to attempt to summarize or allude to the
many powers and functions specifically delegated to the
Coordinating Board by Article 2919e-2. Suffice it to say that
many of these functions are advisory only and are directed
toward the formulation of plans and policies for the considera-
tion of the various governing boards of the institutions of
higher education, and it is not mandatory that such plans and
policies be adopted by the governing boards. On the other hand,
a number of the functions of the Coordinating Board involve
determinations which are mandatory and must be followed by
the governing boards.
We have carefully considered all provisions of
Article 2919e-2 and are unable to find within the enumerated
powers and functions of the Coordinating Board authority to fix
maximum enrollments at all public senior colleges and universities.
Indeed, Section 15 expresses an intention on the part of the
Legislature that every effort be made to ". .. assure efficient
use of construction funds and the orderly development of
physical plants to accommodate projected college student
enrollments . . . . ( TEmphasis added.) To this end the
Board is directed, among other things, to devise formulas for
space utilization, methods to assure maximum daily and year-
round use of facilities. While paragraph 3 of Section 15 does
direct the Board to "Consider plans for selective standards
of admission when institutions of higher education approach
capacity enrollment", we do not construe this language to
authorize the fixing of a numerical maximum, but rather that
a plan may be "considered" whereby a person desiring to enroll
must first meet a prescribed set of standards. While the
standards would necessarily preclude those from enrollment
who failed to meet their measure, nonetheless they would not
limit enrollment to a specific number of students,
In any event, we do not construe Article 2919e-2-3126-
(M-652)
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.
Matching Search Results
View four places within this text that match your search.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: M-652, text, June 19, 1970; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth269878/m1/4/?q=Lamar+University: accessed June 11, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.