.THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
'.OPTE&iS.
AUWI-XNH.WWJCAEI
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
The lrgali$t~. 08 sll&taae-
cm8 sep8rate aomolSdrtlon.
eleotioas which irll2 FQP-
solidate Floydada fadepen-
dent Sshool DistzrlCt and
rash contl'uoue OQmmon
mhool die &ricts a8 We
. tavW*blf ia *heir Se**
rate elebtlonsb
School Distriot and each of several ceatlguous conmoa
school dlat*lots with a view to creating a aev 8ohe92
dlstriot whleh would include the Floydads Dirtriot aad
Nclh OS the otbera a8 vote favorably ea oeaaelllatiear
Artlale as amended, provldee
3906,V.C.S.,. in
partt
“On the petition of twenty (20) or a ea-
jority of the legally quulif’led votom ef
of several ooatl uoua coamoa sohool dirtrio 9 Bb
OF ool?flguow i 4 ependent school distriote,
reylng for the O~eelldatloYi ef ruoh d&l*
hi&s rer aeheol mar~oses the County judge
#ball l~sue aa order for & election to be
hold oa the mm0 gay la e eueb district.
The Couaty Judge ,bhnll or the date
OS ruoh eteatlons,by ll+atlen es the order
la Borne @e rpaper pub &shed in the coaatt ior
twenty (20 7 dews prim@ to the date oa xhieh
such eleatloas aPe ordered, or w poHiag I
notice 0r Bush election8 In c OS the dla-
trlots, or b b&h suah publiea ““z ion &a# $eItr
ed twtloe. be Co881rrlonera1 Court rhall
at Its next meetlag, ~anvasa the retar+s e$
Hoa. John B. Stapleton, page 2 (V-766)
such elections, and IS the votes cast In m
&& dlatrlcta show a majority in oh dla-
P?r at voting separately In favor 0r au0
%OIt-
aolldatlon, the Court shall declare the school
~dl8trlota conaolldated.” (&sphaala ours.)
This statute gm;;t;; tI+sg;;;m;~tmet~?C~
oaedure by vhloh ‘A”
r latrlat may be conaolldated vi&h the FIomaS I. S. D.
at the same Instant to form a single new conaollbated
rchool dlatrlct. It requires the preaeafmtlon OS a pe-
tition to the County Judge containing 20, or a majority,.
of the quallSle4 voters OS each OS the contiguous dir-
trlcts praTlng Sor co~aolldatlon OS such dlatrlcta Sor
school puPposes.
Under its express p~ovlaiona the conaollda-
tlon’of such four dlatrlcta can be effected only where
the proposed conaolldatlon has carried by a majority
vote In each district at an election held separately in
each oS the ,intereatad school diatrlct8. A. 0. ,DplaIon, .
V-531 ‘and cases cited therein. h4er It8 Poquimmht8
the Commlaaionera~ Court would be vithout aothorfty to
declare a oonaolldatlon OS a117 leas number OS 4lBfrlota
than the Sour voting at the election called for said
purpose.
Cleerly Article 2806 contemplates, the re-
qulred petition being proper, that an elaatlon be call-
l4 to be held in eaah of the 418trlot8 on whether the
Sour contiguous school dlstrlata shall be conaolldated
tb f6rr a new aohool’dlstrlct comprising such four for-
B&P school biatrlcta. Caa It be said ai a datt6r oi
l&v that any pae OS ‘the dxa~trlo~ts vdte on Xne quaa%Lcn
OS oonsolldatlon with the three other districta vhen
It votes only on the propoaltloa vhethw It shall bon-
solidate with the Flcydada dlatrlot as it exist8 at
the time of the election? To state the queatloa im to
give a negative aaaver.
The L4entlaal qiestloa has been before this
department on,aeoeral oooaalaaa lnvolrlng the matter oS
approval OS bonds Issued by conaoll~ated 4latrlota, a#&d
la each lnatsnoa the same conolualon was reaohed. As
. reoantly as l&ember 19, 1948, the Attomey Oeneral ad-
vised such a 4latrlot by letter as follovs:
1
Hon. John B, Stapleton, paga 3 (V-766)
“Article 2806 provides, ln effect, that
on the petition of tvent or a majority of
the legally qualified vo 1 era of each of e
school districts praying fob the con-
so 4atloa of aueh 4latrlota
4t ios aahool pur-
poses, the county judge shall order aa elec-
tion to be held cm the same day In laeh 8ueh
dlatwldt. Our lnterwetatlon of this prevl-
alon 18 that the petition must pray fw the
aenroll4atloa ol all tha school &l$OPviok &-
fectad. However, the petition of laoh cem-
mon school distbiot prays on17 for the DQQY
aolldatlon of Such dlatrleta, respectively,
vlth the . . . District. Woreore& the eleo-
tlon notices, election returns an4 eanvsaslng
orders we?% prepare4 rlmllarl~. It 18 the
opinion of this bepartawnt that this error la
fundamental. ’
The construction bg the Attorney Qeneral of
the provlalona of Article 2806 was widely Icnown. It la
an eatabllahe4 principle of 8tatuto eonatructlon that
the lnterp~etationa of the Attorm L%neral of the pro-
vlalona o? the law, although not b ding on the Cc~tS,
is highly peF8ue8Ive. The Interpretation OS the Atter-
ney Qeneral of the p~oviaiana of Artlale 2806 was of
general knowledge long prior to the aearlem ef the lrst
Laglalature. Hovaver,,Article 2806 was not amended OP
changed.
The purpose or AFtlcla 2806, In our oplaloa,
Is not for the enlargement of any oae SCh801 dlatrlct
in any manae~ such as advanced by the Floydada district.
Bather, It la to enable the arratlon or a new, larger
school district by the conaoll4etlon or tvo olr mOTe
smaller dlatrlcta whoa laoh of such interested petltlon-
lng dlatrlcta vote in favor thereof. County Bd. of
Sohool Trustees of Limestone Count v. W la n, 15 S. Y.
(26) 144; State v. Cadenhead, 129 5. v. t2dI 7:3$2)-
alty I, S. D. v, Dist. Trustees, etc., 135
1021; Heaver v. Bd. of Tmatesa of Wilson I. ‘S ‘D 04
S. U. (26) 864; Pyote I. S. D. v. Dyep, 34 S. G. lsd t
578; Bigfoot I. S. D, v. Qenard, 116 S. W, (26) 80$;
A. Q. Oplnloa lo. V-562. Article 2806 specifically pro-
riding the sole prooedure by which lehool 4latrlots may
be conaolldated and authorizing conaolfdat1eaa oP such
dlatrlcts only when each petitionin district votes in
ravor of oonaolldatlng auoh dlatzclo &8, it follova that
no school district may accomplish br Indirection that
Bon, John B, Stapleton, page 4 (v-766)
which may not bm done directly undor said statute. The
Floydada dlrtrlot may not le~rlly aocomplirh oo~qllda-
tlon in the -BP it proporer. It lr aa aoorptul sulo
or rtatutoq oonrtrouotlon thst whem the peromamae 0r
a aortain thing In a pu?tlculu IULILOP01, by a pmtlcu-
lu pepeon Is dbsoted, thwe In u Implied aommand
that it be not done otherwise, lP by lOIM other Hwn*
59 Co J. 984, County School boskem vo Wall r ounty
L. I. Rob. Diata, 95 so w. (24) 204 at 206,
In Rhea C. S, D. v0 Revlaa I, S;D,, 214 S. U.
(26) 660, cltod in JOW bmr, the raota WOPOthat th0r0
was no oomaePted plan on tha pad of the dl#tPlotB ln-
rolred to thwart the plain p~ovlalons and proaedum of
APtlale 2806s This oomtltutos lu 0lLp eplaion a runda-
mental aistlmgullrhablr~~rama 8turitmnt rc alrising
that the Rhw-Borlaa Cam 18 lnrpplloablo to tb gum80
tlon pmmmted hemIn* UB~~P th raot8 or Rhea-rit3arlnr
Case, the Oklahoma und Borlnr dlmt~lota rating umlm
APtlolr 2806 riled theIs petition en Apll 8, 1948, with
the County Judge who promptly oallrd an llootlon ror Mar
8 oa the issue of thelp oonaoli4atleno On ApMl 14, the
Rhea and Borina dlstplotr riled their potltlonr with the
same Count;l Judge who oallod an eleotion ror May 8 on
the issue of the& mnrolldatlon. In the lleotlon, the
Oklahoma-Bovina Conaolldatlon rallod to tiuv~, but the
RheaBovlna oonsolidation did B~PPJ~ Iho latter two .'
dl~tPlctr WOPOdoolued oonrolldat.4 rd raid rloctlon
wan doolamd valid by the tplrl oooPt wham Judgment
warn arfipred In the alted oplaion or the Gout or Civil
Aapsalrro
What the aour *a jutl#mont would hate boon la
thir election oontert oaao h& the Okl~eaa-Boti~ Coa-
rolldatloa also suppled, it dl(l pot attempt to decide
OP oormbnt upon0 But $8~ Coopt did point, out in its
opinion at page 662 $brt, @lb oe~tlfled 60~7 or these
proaeedl4C~ ClOrPlJ urd ~rl~%lV~l~ ovidmace an iA-
tsntloa to oonmlldatr tba Rhea QiaWlot with the Borl-
$ ;;;:;lct, fnd thur wo rind the alectlons a? Hay 8 to
COhidl~ tb suu 00~~ or the p~0000d-
14s aho&'euch intention te aonaolldate Rhor and the
Bovlna dlrtrlotr aould not in any wise be coastmad a8
ovi4onolng an Intention to roarolldak the,Rhoa dlrtrlat
to the Oklahoma-Bovlna Dew rehool entity, •O0~Ing~ roP
the moment@ that the Oklahomadovlaa oonralldatlon had
also oarpled.
Bon. John B. Stapleton, page 5 (V-766)
Beforr the election proc88dlng8 may clearly
and afflrmatlv8ly bvldenoe 8n ln~~fttlgtf,to ooa~o~ldate
Floydad di8tPict and dl8trlOt8 aad C tha
petitions Psqulred of each such die~~lct'under A&o18
2806, the election order", elsctlon notlo88p th8 ballot8
ueed In each of such districts, and the d8cl8r8tlon of
the Commlaslonsrs~ CouPt must show tbrt erch district
proposed to Be consolldat8d voted raver8bly on the pro-
position 0r consolidation with each of the other thrs8
districts. Any other proceedings, In our opinion, COW
travene the plain provisions of' Article 2806, as amena-
ed.
SUMMARY
In the consolld8tloa of echo01 dle-
trlcts, all school &i+tficta Involved rust
be named in the petition and other slec-
tlon proceedings. The proposed plan whsre-
by contiguous school districts in slmulta-
nboua separate consolidation elections at-
tempt to consolidate Floydadk I. S. D. aad
such dlstPlct8 as vote favorably in their
s8paPat.e elections contPavenes the pPovI-
slons of Article 2806, V, C. S., 84 aaend-
ed.
YOUPSvary tpu1g,
ATTORNRYWRF,RALOFTFXAS
CEO:bh
-' Chester I%. 0111~011
Aaeletaat
APPROVED