ATTORNEY GENERAL
 Under provisions set out in the Texas Constitution, the Texas Government Code, 
Title 4, sec.402.042 and numerous statutes, the attorney general is authorized 
to write advisory opinions for state and local officials. These advisory 
opinions are requested by agencies or officials when they are confronted with 
unique or unusually difficult legal questions. The attorney general also 
determines, under authority of the Texas Open Records Act, whether information 
requested for release from governmental agencies may be held from public 
disclosure. Requests for opinions, opinions, and open record decisions are 
summarized for publication in the Texas Register.
 The Attorney General responds to many requests for opinions and open records 
decisions with letter opinions. A letter opinion has the same force and effect 
as a formal Attorney General Opinion, and represents the opinion of the Attorney 
General unless and until it is modified or overruled by a subsequent letter 
opinion, a formal Attorney General Opinion, or a decision of a court of record.
Letter Opinions
LO-94-057-(RQ-659). Request from Rufus J. Cormier, Chair, Texas Southern 
University, Board of Regents, 3100 Cleburne Avenue, Houston, Texas 77004, 
concerning whether a state university may include prayers at commencement 
ceremonies and other official university events.
Summary of Opinion.
Texas Southern University's practice of beginning convocations, faculty 
meetings, and commencement ceremonies with a prayer raises difficult 
constitutional issues of first impression. A court considering the 
constitutionality of this practice would have to decide whether to apply one of 
two analytical approaches applied by the United States Supreme Court in 
Establishment Clause cases. Compare Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971) with 
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). A court would also have to resolve 
factual questions. Given the host of difficult legal issues involved, the Texas 
Southern University should closely scrutinize its practice.
TRD-9446020
LO-94-058-(ID# 24829).
Request from Honorable Ann W. Richards, Governor, State of Texas, Office of the 
Governor, P.O. Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711, concerning authority of municipal 
police to enforce truancy laws, and related questions.
Summary of Opinion.
Municipal police of a municipality in which school district territory is 
included have authority to enforce the truancy laws in such district, "where no 
attendance officer has been elected." In addition, law enforcement officers, 
including city police, have authority to take a child into custody for truancy 
within the definition of "conduct indicating a need for supervision" under 
Family Code, sec.51.03(b)(2) even if there is an attendance officer serving the 
district. Truancy in itself would not be grounds for a school's refusing to re-
admit a child after he had been taken into custody for truancy. A court may 
require a parent found to have committed the offense set out in Education Code, 
sec.4.25, repeated failure to require a child to attend school, to render 
personal services to a charitable or educational institution as a condition of 
probation. A juvenile court in a proceeding against a juvenile for violation of 
Education Code, sec.4.251, for the offense of failure to attend school for the 
periods set out therein, may impose reasonable community service work on a 
juvenile. Where a case has been transferred under section Family Code 54.021 
from a juvenile to a justice court and the child found to have been truant 
within the definition of "conduct indicating need for supervision" in 
sec.51.03(b)(2), the justice court may require that "the child complete 
reasonable community service requirements. " Id. sec.54.021(d)(4). The offense 
provided for in Education Code, sec.4.25, a parent's continued failure to 
require a child's school attendance, is punishable, pursuant to Education Code, 
sec.4.25, as amended by Senate Bill 7, 73d Legislature, by a fine of not less 
than $10 nor more than $50 for the first offense, not less than $20 nor more 
than $100 for the second offense, and not less than $50 nor more than $200 for a 
subsequent offense.
TRD-9446021

Open Records Decisions
ORD-624-(RQ-561). Request from John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts, 
Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78774, concerning whether all identifying 
information about persons liable for state sales tax or franchise tax and their 
business operations is confidential under the Tax Code, sec.sec.111. 006, 
151.027, and 171.206; clarification of Attorney General Opinion H-223 (1974).
Summary of Decision.
 The Tax Code, sec.sec.111.006, 151.027, and 171. 206 prohibit the release of 
information from or derived from taxpayer reports under the sales and use or 
franchise tax laws and from audits of taxpayers. The conclusion in Attorney 
General Opinion H-223 (1974) that the taxpayer's identity may not be disclosed 
in a final administrative decision is reaffirmed. To the extent that language in 
Attorney General Opinion H-223 and Attorney General Opinion JM-590 (1986) 
suggests that the comptroller may not disclose any information about the 
taxpayer's business affairs despite its lack of connection with the subject 
matter of the Tax Code, sec.sec.111.006, 151.027, and 171.206, those opinions 
are modified.
TRD-9446022
ORD-625-(RQ-635). Request from Craig Anthony, Arnold Matthews & Branscomb, P.C., 
One Alamo Center, 106 South Saint Mary's Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205-3692, 
Ruben R. Barrera, Davidson & Troilo, P.C., 613 N.W. Loop 410, Suite 1000, San 
Antonio, Texas 78216-5584, Beverly J. Landers, Senior Supervising Attorney, 
Department of Law-Claims Division, City of Austin, P.O. Box 96, Austin, Texas 
78767-2910, concerning the construction of House Bill 859, Acts 1993, 73d 
Legislature, Chapter 473 (now codified at Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446h).
Summary of Decision.
 House Bill 859, Acts 1993, 73d Legislature, Chapter 473 (now codified at Texas 
Civil Statutes, Article 1446h), does not authorize a government-operated utility 
to withhold information about a customer that is a corporation, partnership, or 
other business association. House Bill 859 permits a government-operated utility 
to withhold an "individual's" address, telephone number, and social security 
number, and corporations, partnerships, and other business associations do not 
qualify as individuals in this context. A government-operated utility must, in 
response to a request for information,
release personal information about its customers even before it has notified 
them of their rights under House Bill 859, sec.4 and given them time to request 
confidentiality. House Bill 859 provides only that a government-operated utility 
may not disclose personal information about a customer if the customer requests 
that the information be kept confidential. The Open Records Act does require a 
government-operated utility to release personal information about a customer to 
the persons and entities listed in House Bill 859, sec.5, even if the customer 
has requested confidentiality. Although House Bill 859, sec.5, appears to give 
government-operated utilities the discretion to release the information, the 
Open Records Act requires them to release information to the persons and 
entities listed in sec.5. The Open Records Act requires that a government-
operated utility determine, at least tentatively, whether House Bill 859 permits 
it to withhold requested information before asking for an attorney general's 
opinion. The Open Records Act does not, however, prescribe the procedure that 
the government-operated utility must use to make this determination. The 
government-operated utility may use whatever process it deems appropriate 
provided that it does not violate or require anyone else to violate any 
provision of law.
TRD-9446023
ORD-626-(RQ-576). Request from Charles Karakashian, Assistant General Counsel, 
Department of Public Safety, P.O. Box 4087, Austin, Texas 78773-0001, concerning 
whether notes and evaluations prepared before an employee promotional board are 
"test items" within the meaning of the Texas Open Records Act, sec.552.122 
Government Code, Chapter 552.
Summary of Decision.
 The term "test item" in the Texas Open Records Act, sec.552.122 Government 
Code, Chapter 552, includes any standard means by which an individual's or 
group's knowledge or ability in a particular area is evaluated. It does not 
encompass evaluations of an employee's overall job performance or suitability. 
Whether information falls within the sec.552.122 exception must be determined on 
a case-by-case basis.
TRD-9446024

Requests for Opinions
(RQ-710). Request from Fred Hill, Chairman Committee on Urban Affairs, Texas 
House of Representatives, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910, concerning 
jurisdiction of a public housing authority. RQ-711. Request from Thomas Cameron, 
Winkler County Attorney, P.O. Box 1015, Kermit, Texas 79745, concerning whether 
a jail facility is exempt from ad valorem taxation when it is occupied for 
county purposes under a lease-purchase contract.
RQ-712. Request from Gerald Alan Joy, Potter County Auditor, 601 South Taylor, 
Amarillo, Texas 79101, concerning whether a county may pay the travel expenses 
of an applicant for the position of county forensic pathologist.
RQ-713. Request from Anthony Grigsby, Executive Director, Texas Natural Resource 
Conservation Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, concerning 
enforceability of financial responsibility mechanisms required by federal law of 
owners and operators of municipal landfills.
RQ-714. Request from Garry Mauro, Commissioner, Texas General Land Office, 
Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701-
1495, concerning whether Government Code, sec.403.0195, which permits the state 
to contract for the receipt of information regarding the recovery of revenue, 
and to pay a "reward" if collection if successful and applicable to the recovery 
of funds committed to the Public Free School Fund.
RQ-715. Request from Ray Farabee, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel, 
University of Texas System, 201 West Seventh Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2981, 
concerning authority of El Paso County Water District Number 1 to impose a 
"benefit assessment" on realty owned by the Permanent University Fund.
RQ-716. Request from Mr. Charles E. Griffith, III Deputy City Attorney, City of 
Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767-8828, concerning whether advice, 
recommendations, and opinions regarding the selection of a police chief 
constitute material related to the policymaking processes of the city, which 
would be excepted from disclosure by Goverment Code, sec.552.111.
RQ-717. Request from Leonard W. Peck, Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Legal 
Affairs Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 99, Huntsville, 
Texas 77342-0099, concerning whether grievances filed by inmates in the custody 
of the Institutuional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice are 
confidential under sec.1997e of title 42, United States Code, and regulations 
promulgated under this section.
RQ-718. Request from Keith Oakley, Chair, Texas House of Representatives, P.O. 
Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910, concerning whether a law enforcement agency 
is required to provide fingerprinting services to the public, and related 
questions.
RQ-719. Request from Lynn Ellison, 81st Judicial District Attorney, Atascosa 
County Courthouse, Circle Drive, Number 5A, Jourdanton, Texas 78026, concerning 
jurisdiction of peace officers.
TRD-9446019