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School Board rescinded Its action of July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