Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

TH GENEEEAL Hon. Heil McKay opinion Ro. V-876 County Attorney Hopkins county Re$ Authority of county SulphurSprings,Texas school board, acting under Article VIII, S.B.116, 5lst Deg., to consolidate that por- tion of dormant county- line school district which is situated in Dear SIri another county. We refer to your inquiry submitting in sub- stance the folloving facts and questions: Fairview C.S.D. is a county-line school district, lying partly in Franklin County and partly in Hopkins County, which is under the jurisdiction of Franklin County School Board. It is a "dormant district" as defined In Art- icle VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature, and thereunder must be consolidated with an ad- joining district or districts. On July 8, 1949, and without obtaining the consent of Hopkins County Board, the Franklin County school board acting under Article VIII consolidated all of the Falr- view county-line district with tb.e Mt. Ver- non district in Franklin County. OnJuly 9, 1949, the Hopkins County School Board by virtue of the provisions of Article VIII con- solidated that portion of Fairview County- line district lying in Hopkins County with the Sulphur Bluff district of Hopkins County. Questions 1. Does the Franklin County Board have the authority, under the facts and Article VIII, to consolidate all of Fair- view County-line district (including that portion thereof lying in Hopkins County) with the Mt. Vernon district of Franklin County? 2. Do the county boards respectively of Franklin and Hopkins County, acting under Art- .. . ‘Hon. wei1 wiii~, page 2 (V-876) lcle VIII, have authority only to consolidate that portion of a dormant district uhich lies vithin its respective county to an adjoining district or districts? The second paragraph in Article VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature, provides that: “If a county-line district is or becomes dormant, as defined herein, the provisions of this Act shall apply and be followed b the several counties affected to the exten*theo territory in each respective countyt- (mapha- sis added.) The provisions of the first paragraph of Arti- cle VIII define *dormant” district and require the coun- ty school board of the several counties to consolidate each dormant district ‘within” the county by order of the Board. The quoted second paragraph specifically governs dormant county-line districts, that Is, dormant dlstr,lcts whose boundaries comprise territory lying in two or more counties. Its provlsions are clear and un- ambiguous. It requires the county board of each county by order to consolidate such portions of donsant county- line districts which lie in its county with an adjoining district or districts. Where,for example, a portion of a dormant county-line district lies in County A and the remaining portion lies in County B, then the County School Board of A may consolidate the County A portion with another district in County A, and likewise B Board may consoli- tit; the County B portion with another district in Coun-,: ._- . Consent of counties to be affected by such divi- sional consolidation of doraaant county-line distriats under Article VIII of S.B. 116 is not required theSeu.u- der . In this respect Article VIII is unlike other laws concerning consolidation, detackrmsnt and annexation to active county-line districts, which do require, in some instances, cooperation and consent of respective county school boards, county judges, district school boards, and/or commissioners ’ courts. For example: Article 2806; Section 5b of Article 2742b; Section 2 of Article 2742e and Section 1 of Article 2’742f. as construed in Count; School Trustees of Ryls County v. State,u;5 W* . ex. see Attorney’General Opinion Ifo.'V-874 for instances when consent is not required. Hon. Well McRay, page 3 (V-876) But in the exercise of the authority delegated In Article VIII, county boards are limited to the extent of the powers granted therein. Under this law the au- thority of a.countg school board to consolidate by order a domnant county-line district Is limited expressly “to the extent of the territory of the county-line district in its respectlve~county. It should be noted that ArUcle VIII of S.B. 116 does not provide that that one county which has ju- risdiction of the damant county-line district for admin- istrative purposes shall consolidate the entire dormant oormty-line district to an adjoining district or dis- tricta. In this respect Article VIII is dissimilar to Section 5b of Article 274213 and Article 2806 (providing for CoI@olldatiOnS by election). These statutes do authorize the county judge and the Commlssloners* Court of the County which has jurisdiction of the county-line school district for adminfstratlve purposes to perform certain duties without the joinder of the like officials of the other county or counties in which lies a portion of the county-line dlstriot. Aoccdlngly, it is our opinion that Article VIII of 5.8. 116, does not authorise Franklin County School Boartl to consolidate by order all of Faimiew county-line district (a portion of which lies in Hop- kins County) with the It. Varnon district of Franklin county. Further, the county school boards of Franklin and Hopkins County respeotfvely, are authorieed under Article VIII of S.B. 116 to consolidate only that por- tion of a dormant county-line district lying rfithin its respective county with an adjoining distriot or dis- :” tricts. SUMMARY One aountg school board, acting under Article VIII, S.B. 116, 31st Legislature, Is not authorized to consolidate all of a dor- mant county-line district with an adjoining dlstrlot In its oounty. The county eohool board of each respec- tive county in whioh territory of a dormant county-line distriot lies is authorized, by virtue of Artiole VIII, to ooneolldate by Hon. IVeil McKay, page 4 (V-876) order only that portion of such a dormant district which lies within its county with an adjoining district or districts. Yours very truly, A'M'ORIOFYGENERALOFTFXAS CEO:bh:mw Chester E. Ollison Assistant APPROVED &ii2 2.h V FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEXGENFRAL I