Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Augurst 8; 1949 Hon. C. H. Cavness Oplnlon ao. v-877 State Auditor Austin, Texas Rer Authority of County School Board to rescind an order consolidating a dormant school dia- trlct, Article VIII, S.B. Dear Sir: 116, 51st Legislature. We refer to your recent opinion request con- cerning the following question and submitted fact sltua- t Ion. The Donley County School Board on July 6, 1949, acting under Article VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature, by order con- solidated two dormant districts, Whlteflsh C.S.D. and Glenwood C.S.D., both of which districts are located entirely in DonIey County, with the McLean Independent School District located entirely in Gray County. Thls action was taken in line with a petl- tion from the patrons of the named dormant districts asklng for such consolidation. On July 11, 1949, this Donleg County School Board rescinded Its action of July 6, and consolidated said dlstrlots, Whlte- fish and Glenwood, to the Alanreed Independ- ent School District of Gray County. Question: "Since the dormant dls- tricts in question are located In Donley County and the Independent districts in question are located In Gray County, a&¶ since the consolidation on July 6 was less than 30 days from the effective date of S.B. 116, while the consolidation of July 11 was more than 30 days after the effec- tive date of S.B. 116, I should like your opinion regarding the authority of the Don- leg County School Board to take the action . ._ Hon. C. B. Cavness, pap 2 (v-877) above outlined.” In our opinion, decisive of the matter before us Is the determination of whether or not the order made by the Donley County School Board of July 6, 1949, was a valid and effective order. If valid, It legally qonsolidated the Whitefish and Glenwood dormant dis- trlcts of Donley County with an adjoining district, Mc- Dean, located in Gray County, and thereby created a new county-line school district; and the attempted rescls- sion by the order on July 11, 1949, was invalid because It no way complied with the law (Section 2 of Article 2742e and Section 1 of Article 27421) relating to de- taching land from one Independent district and attaching it to another independent district. County School Trus- tees of Runnels County v. State, 95 S.W.2d 1001 (Tex. The fact that one order was made on July 6, that is, within the 30-day provision of.Article VIII, S.B. 116, and the subsequent order was made on July 11, which was after the 30-day period of the Act, is lrre- levant In this matter. Tbls office in Its opinion Ro. V-855 has held that the 30-day period in S.B. 116 is directory rather than mandatory in nature, and that con- solidations under Article VIII may be expected after as well as within the JO-day period following the effec- tive date of S.B. 116. The application of Article VIII is restricted. It expressly prescribes that *the provisions herein for the consolidation of school districts by order of the County Board of Trustees shall be applicable only In the circumstances herein enumerated.” The first paragraph of Article VIII requires consolidation of each dormant school district within the county with an adjoining dls- trict or districts. It deals with a dormant aistrlct located entirely within one county. The second para- graph requires consolidation of each dormant couuty- line district. It provides that “the several counties affected” (by this provision requiring the conSolida- tion of a dormant county-line district) shall “to the extent the territory in each respective county* apply the provisions of this Act. It deals with a dormant :’ district whose boundaries include territory lying in two or more counties. Hon. C. H. Cavness, Page 3 (V-877) With respect to consolidation of a dormant dls- trict located wholly within one county, Article VIII re- quires that the Board of that county shall consolidate same “with an adjoining district or districts.” Trike- wise, since the second paragraph refers to the provi- sions of the first, it follows that Boards of those counties affected in the consolidation of a dormant county-llne dlstriat are required thereunder by their several action to consolidate dormant areas “to the ex- tent of the territory in eaoh respective county” with an adjoining district or districts. A. 0. Opinion V-876. It will be observed that no provision In Art- icle VIII requires that a dormat district located wholly within one county or territory of a dormant county-line district within a county shall consolidate “with an adjoining district or districts” within the county wherein It is located. Therefore, we think that Article m may not be cons&u%d as prohfbitfng con- solidation of such dormant districts or territory with an adjolniag district or districts across a county line. It ~3.11 be observed further, however, that the Legislature in providing for the consolidation of coun- ty-line districts, as above discussed, limited the ju- risdiction of the Boards of the counties affected to consolidate only *to the extent of the territory” in Its county. This constitutes, in our opinion, an intention on the part of the Legislature to preserve jurisdiction to each county school board the power to determlne con- solidation matters affecting the school districts with- in its jurisdiction. We do not believe that ArtLole VIII was intended to force one county school board to accept against Its will or without its approval consoll- dations under Article VIII made by an adjoining county school board. Its primary purpose, as we see It, is to require that dormant districts, dormant territory, and territory not now a part of any school district, shall be consolidated with an active adjoining district or districts, be it In County A or an adjoining County B. It should not be construed in a manner which may result in friction and disputes between county school boards, and in the creation of jurisdictional conflicts. A% pointed out in Opinion Bo. V-876 concern- ing dormant county-line districts, the Legislatme in A%tlcle VIII did not give the county board which now has jurlsdlctlon of the county-line diatrlct for ad- Hon. C. Ii,Cavness, page 4 (V-877) mlnlstrativepurposes, the authority to consolidatein its entirety the dormant county-linedlstrlct. Accordingly, it Is our opinion that the action taken by the County School Board of Donley County on July 6, 1949, by virtue of the provisions of Article VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature,consolidating dormant dcmmon school districts,Whitefish and Glenwood, locat- ed entirely In Donley County, with the adjoining McLean IndependentSchool District, located entirely in Gray count is valid, rovided the County School Board of ounty consenes or approves thereto. Such orders Gray iv of approval should designatewhich county board shall have jurisdictionof the newly created county-linedls- trict for school purposes. SUMMARY A dormant school district under Arti- cle VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature,locat- ed entirely in one county or that portion of a dormant county-line@strict located in a certain county, may be consolidatedwith an adjoining active school district or Districts located in another county, where the county school boards of the counties to be affect- ed thereby consent and approve to such con- solidation. If an order passed by a county school board.actingunder Article VIII, S.B. 116, consolidatinga dormant school district with an adjoining district or districts in another county 1s valid, an attempted re- scission of that order by a subsequent board order purporting to consolidatethat s%me district with another district Is in- valid, because it In no way complies with the laws relating to detaching from one di%- trict and attaching to another. Kermit I.S. D. Ho. 5 v. State, 208 S.W.2d 717; Weinert . . . v. ENS, 52 s.w.28 370. Yours very truly, ATTORN??XGEBERALOFTEXAS AppRz?Y&L.& By-LzLzzLro- FIRST ASSISTAKT 8 AITITORREYGERBRAL Chester E. Ollison CEO:bh:m Assistant