EATTORNEY GENERAL,
QFTEXAS
AUSTIN ~~.Tmcx~s
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAI.
August 12, 1948
Hon. Preston E. Hutchinson, Accountant
Joint Le islative Conuittee
Austin, 4 exam Opinion Ho, V-659
Appllicability of’ 435
imitation in ~Artlole
i
5
spal?sely settled in-
g”,m~“nt sehoel dir-
4
We refer to your request Pop an 0pinlOn OOa-
cernlng the applicability of the $35 POP SohoZrStitI
limitation on equalization aid to independent school
dic+W&ts, e~lgi~le and applying fop aid, under the
third paragraph of Section 1, Art. I, H. B0 295, 5Qth
Legislature. We quote frol youp opiai*e FOqWt, Fo
pm-t, a8 follows:
“The first part of this paragraph quali-
fies school district lirlts aid to
thirty-five dollars per scholaatlc6
The ssoond part of tha,paregraph quaefbfies
indspeadent sohoai c%$Uatriota OD about $h&
same baels but does not speclfioally r)by
that such dlst 8 are limited to thirty-
five dollape ( pop 8chola8tic, Since
the budgetary need, requirements end quali-
fications of the above named dlstrlote are
the same, we feel that It is necessary to
ask the following question:
‘lAFe independent districts, qualifying un-
der this special provisl n, llmlted to
thirty-five dollaF6 ($3S? par 8oho2artio?s
‘If the above queetioa ie.ansvorsd in the
negative, the eeoond quostlon would bsi
Bon. Preston E, Hutchinson, page 2 (V-659)
“P&e independent school distrio 8, with
less than one hundred and fifty 150)
scholastics, as described in Aptlcle 27 3,
limfted to the thirty-five dollar6 ($35 P
per soholastlo%B
“Attaohed is an example of some ten or iii-
toen distrlotk qualifying under this spe%lal
ovi61ene Please note on page 1, item as
Fhat said district is on y apply1 for
thirty-five dollam ($35 par schoT a8tlC as
descpibod in Article 1, i ectlom lp As yeu
will nete en page 5, with the llmitatien ra*
r~vol, eald Qlstriotqs salary aid grant VllL
be ralsrd from twe t usan oighht hundred
and eeventy dollars 2870) to eight thou- II’
sand eight hundred and seven dollars ($8807)~
The third pmagva of Section 1, of AFtiole
I, Ii, B, 295, read8, Ln par r o ar3follows~
“F’z.=ovided thBt sohool di8tPiCtP in
oatmties having a scholastic population
equivalent to ons&alf of one pupil pep
square mile or lesa in the entire county,
or school dlstriots having a scholastic
population equivalent to one scholastic
le or less and containing one
square miles or mope in area,
may be exempt from the average dally atten-
dance requirement and the teacher- upil
quota requirement of this Aot, if Pt is so
recommended by the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction and approved by the Log-
lslatlve Accountant, for the purpose of
maintaining a~high school of, sixteen (, 6)
or more affiliated units, vfth seven (7 or
more teachers; but in no inatanoe may,the
coat of the,Byalisajlon fund exceed thirty-
five dollars $35VO0 Q~P pupil in such d.ls*
trlot, And be it further prvvided that In-
dependent SC 001 Districts comprised of one
hundred (100 P sgua~e mile.6 or more9 and,that
are now a cr dlted and equipped to maintain
a twelve 112‘3 grade school with sixteen (16)
or more afflllated high school units, and .
hevi a scholastic population of less than .~
one I@ 1) pep square mile in the district My
be exempt from then average dally ,attipdanoe
.
Hon. Preston Z;. Hutchlnson, page 3 (v-659)
and teachop-pupil quota requirements of
this Act if it la se Pecommended by the
State Superintendent and approved by the
Leglrlativo Aocountant POP the pwpose of
imintainlng en& accredited schools and
employi SIX(~) OF mop8 teachers lnalud-
lng the 3 u)eplntcr*leat.
The first sentence in the ebooe quoted para-
m Is substantiaUy the saao a8 the third papagraph
$
of ectlon 1, AFtlola I, S, B, 167, 49th
The enlj ataHa1 dlfferenaa is that the
Iatwe raise& th4 lidtatlen figwe fpoa
The relasinl et’ the quctsd paragraph by
wan rCr&si
tha 50th Lo
wwaph
In oountise
having a aoholastlc pepulat 0 one-half
OP iess in the entire own-
having scholastic popula-
stlc neP sauaxw mile op ~
less arid containing 100 SQuaPo mil&3 o~-mwe In area,”
urd the $39 U.uitatlon 16 expzwasly avie aa to ‘suoh
UetFlots 9
The second atptenoo lxa said quoted pap yw
a9eclfioallg oonce~ns ‘Independent School DlstPia s
that are now accredited and equipped te Psalntaln a &2-
grade eohool with at least 16 affiliated high schoel
UllitB 9 and which have a s$holastic populat&on of less
than one per square mile In the dfstriot. There ie
no $35 limitation made with respeot to eald lndepon4ent
school distpicta,
We think the ~Oth‘L~gislatwe b y its l6o tlen
of thio seaond sentence gwovlslon effectively and 1&WI-
tional.ly removed In&e endent Qlatplcte as dealgnats
therein from the Mn.i ? atiow ~of the fir6t sentenoe Q lie
oan peroeiee of no peason why the Legislatwe would have
added this latter ppovioion except to free such deslgN-
ted independent districts from the $35 limftatlon appl%-
cable ta al.1 school districts covred by the first part
oi the paragraph i
Artiole VI ef Ho B. 295 p~otidiw, in pults
“It shall be tha dut of The State
Supsrintrndent of Pub110 r znstpuotioa ad
Hon. Preston E. Hutchinson, page 4 (V-659)
the Legislative Accountant to take such
action and to make such rules and pegula-
tlons not inconsistent wlth the tepms of
this Act as may be necessary to carry out
the ppovlslona of this Act, and for the
best interest of the schools for whose
benefit the Funds ape appropzlated, tion
An examination of the several applications for
State-aid attached to the opinion pequeat, which were
submitted by certain Independent achooP districts quall-
fging under the second sentence of the third paragraph
of Section 1 of Article I of said Act, reveals that the
State Superintendent has puled in this matter to the ef-
fect that said independent school districts are not lim-
ited by the $35 provision applicable to school districts
qualifying under the first sentence in said paragraph
four of Section 1, As indicated hereinabove, we think
the State Superintendent has puled in this mat.tercon-
sistent with the terms of said Act,
The Leglslatwe, by its enactment of
the second sentence p~ovlsion in the third
paragraph of Section 1 of Article I, H. B.
295, Acts 1947, intentionally removed the
sparsely settled independent school dls-
tzicts therein designated from the $35
limitation applicable to other school dla-
tricts covered by said Act,
YOUPS velpytzulg,
A'PPOBNEYGEBEBAL OF TEXAS
CEO:mw
Chester E, Clllson
Assistant
APPROVED:
~, $ik.& jL.2
ATI'OREEYGENERAL