~~%~A~oRNEY GENERAL,
OFTEXAS
July 28, 1949.
.
Hon. Roy fi. Bill Opinion lo. V-866.
County Attorney
Runnels County Ren Propriety of calling ooneollda-
Ballingor, Texae tion election upon petition
filed under Art. 2806 by rest-
dents of a “dormant” di#triot
a8 dofined in Art, VIII, S. 1).
Dear Sir a 116, Aots Slat Legislature,
We refer to your r,eoent inquiry a8 to the au-
thority of a "dormant" rohool distrlot (aa def'#.ned in
Artlole VIII, 5. B, 116, Aot8 of the slat Legislature,
1949, and a8 oonetrudQ in 'opinion V-856 a copy of which
is enoloeed) to petition for consolidation with a oon-
ti oua mhool distriot,oprrstlng itr mohoolr and the
auEt orlty OS a ooumty judge to call ruch lleotien under
Article 2806, V.C.S.
The Pourth paragraph of Article VIII, S.B. 116,
read8 as followst
"The provlsiens herein for the aenaoli-
datlon of school dlatrlots by order of the
county Board of Truetees 8halL be applloable
only in the lnrtanors and olraumtances hrro-
Article XII, the repealing olause of S,B, ll.6,
repeals only those law8 which are Sn confliat with thle
newly enaoted rtxltute. Th\sa, by virtue of the prov$.-
rlone 81 Artlole VIII quoted and Artiole XII, Article
2806 and other applioable rtatuter en eleotions for ema-
solidation and statutes on annexation have not been re-
pealed; they me in Pull force and effeat unless Article
VIII ot S.B. 116 oonf'llcts therewith.
We have already stated in our Opinion Ro. V-855
that we believe the primary purpose of Article VIIr, when
Hon. Roy L. Hill, page 2 (V-866)
considered along with all provisions OS S.B. 116, 5s to
provide a more expeditious method of abollshlng dor-
mant’ sohool districts (as therein defined) and to re-
qulre their consolidation “with an adjoining district or
districts .” Further, it is to provide a better arrange-
ment of applicable situations for the revenue purposes
of S.B,, 116 and to simplify the law governing the rais-
ing and dlsposltlon of school funds to finance this new
Foundation School Program. That the Legislature ha8 the
powur to ao provide for the abollshlng of dormant sohool
districts 5n the manner set out in Article VIII 5s sup-
But we do not construe Article VIII as provld-
lng the exclusive manner by which dormant districts
shall be oonsolidated with an adJoInIn& dfstrfct or dis-
tricts, We have held that such dormant” districts must
be oonsolldated, Sqr rticle VIII expressly so “author-
izes md requires. OpYn5on V-855) . However, the
above quoted paragraph of Article VIII further sxpresaly
prov54es that the dormant district consolidation proc,e-
dure therein prescribed “shall not be construed to . . .
limit any existing statute pro$idlng e methods of
school district consolidation,
Article 2806 Is an existing statute providing
one other method of school district consolidation.
Shoum advise herein that Article VII3 provides the
only and exclusive method whereby dormant sohool dla-
trlats, as therein defined, may be consolidated, we
would, in effect, hold that the authority granted to
schaol distrIcta and the county judge in Article 2806
ia 15m5trd by and subdect to ;4he provls5ons of Article
VIII 5naoSar as such dormant school districts may be
involved o Suoh a construction would do violence to the
underscored provisions of Article VIIIi
OS course, where a county school board oonroll-
dates a “dormant” district as provided in Artlale VIII&
that 58, passes its order to that effect, the “dormant
dlstrlot has been abolished by such action. Kermit 1.9.
z!&i&&$~ supra, at page 722. Such arm
s ed y consol54ation no longer exists to act
under Artlole 2806.
.,-
Bon, Roy L, Hill, Page 3 %V-866%
But IS, prfop to pasea e of a OoiWj board oon-
solldation order as provided In f rtlole VIII, such a
dormant district acting under Article 2806 SlleB the re-
quired proper petlt5on wfth the aouiity judge, the rules
applicable to co-ordinate jI.u?58d5ot5~ attaoh, lnvest-
5ng the couuty judge with exoluslve jurlsd5otPon and the
m5nlstsrfal duty to call the oonaol54atfon eleotlon re-
quired In Artlcl
Baker, 120 Tex, 307,
?3z=7D5st0 Ho: 11 X”
lY3y-(Tex cric qipa 1
CommonSchool Diet,, ,
error GTZi7r”r.i
f’rom and dur the tfme p~lofo consol54at5on pPooeo45ngs
under Artlole“2 806 are Sfrst fnitfated and enbing, the
County school board would have no jur584iot Pon to Wt sx
matters affecting the status of a aehool 45strlat so La-
volvrd 0 However, sheuld tho slectlon called puvsuamt
to Article 2806 rail to oarry, then the county bear4
would be at liberty to consol5date safd dormant” dls-
trlct with an a4jofnlhg dfstpfct OF distvfcta under Ar-
tfcle VIII, S,B, 116,
A “dwm8nt’ sohool 42st~Oot a0 d@Siosd
in Art5010 VIII, S,B, 116, Acts 51re Logisla-
turo, may bu aoasel54a&r4 wfth an adgolm3.q
dlstmlct or d5stP5ots by osnpl5amo wfth PPO-
visions OS Artlole 2806, V,C,S, Snoh Art,lolo
VIII 4oes not prescribe,,the excfuslve method
f%~~~snsol5datlon of a donant sohosl dls-
c
Where oensolf4at5on preaee45.48 em fn-
itfated by SW5ug a propor petitlen wfth the
county ju4ge as required 5n Article 2806,
prior to oonsol54at5on OS the “dormant”
distrlot by the oounty sohool bard undsr
HOG, ROY L. ~1, page 4 (V-866)
ArticleVIII, S,B, 116, the oowty ju@e
must call the electionfor consolOclatfon
rmplred by Artiole2806*
Yours very truly,
ATTORNEY
CU!BERAL
OF TEXAS
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion