Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Dr. J. W. Edgar Opinion No. M-857 Commissioner of Education Texas Education Agency Re: Application of nepotism 201 East 11th Street statute where.a school Austin', Texas 70701 trustee related to a pro- spective teacher has been elected but proposes de- laying qualifying until after date customary for board action on teacher Dear Commissioner Edgar: contracts. You have requested the opinion of this office on the question raised by the following fact situation'. An independent school district employs its teachers on a one year term contract basis. Section 23.28, Texas Education Code. Normally it reemploys teachers (with less than 3-year tenure) in Hay (this year, Nay 13,~1971) for the ensuing school term, 1971-72, beginning in the Fall. Teacher X is currently under contract with this district for the current school term, 1970-71. She has been employed there less than a year. ff she is to be reemployed for the ensuing year, 1971-72, the district board would normally contract vith her at its May meeting (May 13, 1971). At the recent regular school trustee election held on April 3, 1971, Mr. Y was elected a trustee for a three-year term. Returns were canvassed and Y duly declared elected on April 15, 1971. Teacher X is Mr. Y's first cousin, so X and Y are related in the second degree by consanguinity. Mr. Y was present at the canvass of the election returns and the declaration of his election. At that time two other -4156- Dr . J. 0s. Edgar, page 2 (M-857) trustees elected at the same election qualified by taking the official oath of office and were given their certificates of election. (Section 23.1Ob and 23.19, Texas Education Code). Mr. Y did not take the oath and did not accept a cer-' tificate of election when present at the canvass of the returns. Be currently declines to qualify by taking the oath until at a time after the school board awards contracts for the 1971-72 school term, which will normally bs done on Hay 13. His position is that by so waiting to take office and Teacher X being co&acted before he qualifies as trustee, his first cousin legally may teach in the 1971-72 term. You have submitted for our~opinion the following queationl 'Under the submitted facts and situation. would a school district board bs in violation of the nepotiem law to employ or reemploy ea teacher $ubsequent to the April 1971 truatee election (say in mid-May), a person related in second degree by blood to a trustee then elected and who is not covered by the law's Z-year exception--where the trustee declines to qualify for the office by taking oath until after the teacher relative is contracted for ensuing year(s) by the school districtl" Tt is clear that under the stated facts that Article 432, Texas Penal Code, would apply to prohibit the appointment of Teacher x if pl.r.Y should qualify as a m-emberof the board before such time as a contract might be entered into with Teacher X. A contract so entered would be void and all members of the board approving the contract would be in violation of Article 432 even if Mr. Y did not participate. Attorney General's Opinions NO. D-793 (1939) and No. O-3016 (1941). We are of the opinion, however, that under a fact situa- tion whereunder Mr. Y does not qualify for the office until after a binding contract is entered into between the other members of the Board and Teacher X, the contract would not be prohibited by Article 432, which must be strictly construed as a penalty statute. -4157- ,. ..: .: Dr. s. VI. Edgar, page 3 (M-857) This statement is predicated upon the execution of a binding con- tract by the parties as contrasted with a mere unilateral decision on the part of the Board to employ the teacher. (Article 23.28 of the Education Code provides that all 12 month contracts shall be- gin on July 1 and end on June 30). Article XVI, Section 17, Constitution of Texas, provides as follows: "All officers within this State shall continue to perform the duties of their offices until their successors shall be duly qualified." This section applies to public school trustees. Art- icles 432 and 433, Texas Penal Code. It is self-executing, and is mandatory. Common School District No. 1 of Yoakum County v. Havhurst, 122 S.W.Zd 322 (Tex.Civ.App. 1938, no writ). Mr. Y, prior to taking the oath necessary to qualify, is not a member of the board, the place to which he was elected being held by his predecessor. Attorney General's Opinions No. V-760 (1949) and V-868 (1949). and cases cited therein. The trustee who holds over until his successor is duly qualified is not merely a de facto trustee, but is held to be a de jure officer under Article XVI, Section 17. Attorney General's Opinion No. O-17 (1939). citing Cowan v. Caoos, 278 S-W.283 (Tex.Civ.App. 1925, rev. on other grounds, Comm.App. 1926, 286 S.W. 161) and State v. Jordan, 28 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Civ.App. 1930, error dism). If Mr. Y does qualify after the Eoard enters into a contract with Teacher X, then a consideration of Article 435, Texas Penal Code is in order: it provides as follows: “Noofficer or other person included within the third preceding article shall approve any ac- count or draw or authorize the drawing of any war- rant or order to pay any salary, fee or compensation of such ineligible officer or person, knowing him to be so ineligible." -4158- DS. J. w. Edgar, page 4 (M-857) We are of the opinion that if Mr. Y does qualify after the Board has entered into a year's contract with Teacher X, then the Board may legally order payment of her salary. Attorney General's Opinion No. O-361 (19391, considers both Article 432 and 435, and holds that when a school superin- tendent married a trustee's daughter subsequent to the making of his contract of employment his contract remained valid and he could legally be paid his salary. Attorney General's Opinion No. O-667 (1939) concluded that a teacher's contract continued valid when during the term of her contract her relative was elected to the Board of Trustees. The opinion made no mention of Article 435. In Attorney General's Opinion No. O-6330 (1945), this office expressed the opinion that a teacher's contract was not invalidated when after her contract was made she married a relative of a board member. No mention was made of Article 435. Attorney General's Opinion No. v-184 (1947) held that a teacher's contract remained valid when her relative was elected to the Board after her contract was made. The opinion did not mention Article 435, but the inquiry expressly raised the question of legality of salary payments. We think it a valid assumption that the publisher of each of these opinions considered payment to be legal when th,econtracts were held to remain valid. On the other hand, three Attorney General's Opinions, Numbers O-1408 (1939). O-6406 (1945), and O-7516 (1946) held that a county employee legally on the county payroll could not remain on that payroll subsequent to the date that by marriage or the election of a new commrssioner a relationship prohibited by Article 432 arose. We are of the opinion, however, that these last three opinions should be distinguished on the grounds that in each case the employee appears to be hired on a month to month basis, where- by a new contract was in effect entered :nto each month by mutual consent. As these new contracts would postdate the date of the relationship, continued employment would be prohibited. This Dr. J. w. Edgar. page 5 (M-857) prohibition would not apply to a teachers annual contract entered into before the date that the prohibited relationship arose. SUMMARY A school board may legally enter into an annual contract with a teacher whose first cousin has been elected to the Board, provided that on the date the contract is made the trustee elect has not taken the required oath and qualified. The contract remains valid and the Board may legally order payment of the teacher's salary even though the trustee elect qualifies subsequent to the date of the contract. Very truly yours, 'CP.AWF%RDC. MARTIN Attorney General of Texas Prepared by James S. Swearingen Assistant Attorney General '\ APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Jack Sparks James 'N1j.d: I-ia;: Iztta :icGregor Payne Dick Chote KE3DE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant KOLA WHITE -4160- First Assistant