TL'.R AITOMNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
.
Ausrrmu. TExAn 78711
CRAWFORD C. MARTIN
*-RNISY OL+I6RAs.
July 24, 1972
Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion No. M-1177
Commissioner of Education
Texas Education Agency Re: Validity, pursuant to Sub-
201 East 11th Street section (d) of Section
Austin, Texas 78701 21.904, Texas Education
Code, of proposed regulation
of independent school dis-
trict forbidding its em-
ployees from holding any
other position of honor,
trust or profit under the
State of Texas or any sub-
Dear Dr. Edgar: division thereof.
Your recent letter requesting the opinion of this of-
fice concerning the referenced matter states, in part, as follows:
"A board of trustees of an independent school
district of this State (Goliad) has proposed to
adopt a school district policy to read, in sub-
stance as follows:
"'An employee of the school district shall
not hold another office or position of honor,
trust or profit under the State of Texas or any
subdivision thereof. The Board of Trustees
expects and requires each employee of the school
district to devote his (her) full working time,
except as otherwise provided in school policies,
to the school district without interference from
any other political subdivision of the State of
Texas. '
"The Board of trustees of the school district,
acting formally as a board, has moved that I re-
‘7 quest an opinion from the Office of the Attorney
General concerning the legality or propriety of
such proposed policy."
Section 40 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas
is not relevant to your request, inasmuch as an employee of a
-5752-
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (M-1177)
school district does not hold an "office of emolument" within
the meaning of that Section. Attorney General's Opinion No.
C-386 (1965).
Nor is Section 33 of Article XVI of the Constitution
of Texas applicable to your request, inasmuch as we hold that
employees of an independent school district (Section l(c) of
Article 695h, Vernon's Civil Statutes; Attorney General's Opin.ion
NO. o-74 ,91 (1946); Muse v. Prescott School District, 349 S.W.2:d
329, 3301-32 (Ark.Sup. 1961); contra, Board of Education v. Cit.y
Louisville, 157 S.W.Zd 337, 345(Ky.Sup. 1941)), as opposed to
employee$of a state-supported university (Boyett v. Calvert,
467 S.W.,2d 205 (Tex.Civ.App. 1971, error ref. n.r.e.1; Talbott
v. Publi.c Service Commission, 163 s.W.Zd 33, 36-37 (Xy.sup. k2,,,
are not State "officers" or "employees" within the purview of
that Section.
Subsection (d) of Section 21.904, Texas Education
Code, is the identical wording as that portion of Article
2922-21a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, its predecessor; it reads
as follows:
"No school district, board of education, super-
intendent, assistant superintendent, principal, or
other administrator shall directly or indirectly
coerce any teacher to refrain from participating in
political affairs in his community, state or nation."
Therefore, you are advised that the proposed policy
set forth in your letter, insofar as it attempts to proscribe
school district employees' participation in political activities,
is violative of Subsection (d) of Section 21.904, Texas Education
Code, and of no force or effect.
SUMMARY
A school district policy which prohibits a
teacher from participating in political affairs
is in contravention of Subsection (d) of Section
21.904, Texas Education Code, and is of no force
or effect.
/7
-5753-
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 3 (M-1177)
Prepared by Austin C. Bray, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
Malcolm Quick
Sig Aronson
James Hackney
Wardlow Lane
SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLA WHITE
First Assistant
-5754-
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion