Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

E A~~ORNEYGENERAL OF 'FlEXAS Hoa. Clan lb VmZandt County and Diatriat Attorney Qrayson Couaiq Sheman, Texas Dear Sir: opinion No. O-6868 Ra: Authority of oounty board of trua- teer of Gmyson County to detaah a por- tion of the territory of Soutimayd Cm molt Sahool District and anned it to Dorahester Independent School Dintriot, He are in receipt of your letter of recent data requesting &)I ~&$&r fromthis depW+mont OII tha llmvo etated mtter, aracmp&ed by 8 l&t~r ad. dressed to you frun the roumty tohool auperinteadorrg of Graymn CQIJ&J?. TQ~ letter from thm sow&y 8ohooI mpsriatondoat attach& to your requoat row& am fOllmw!I “On &rob 86, 1646 WI 0lsoU021~~o hd.d ia Phrsaat Qdm SohoOt Dir- @iat Ne. 61 is drtormlno wh+thrr or mot Plomaat Horns Comma Bahoo3. Piatriot NQ* 61 should oonrolldato with Bouthmyd Comnon Sohool Dirtriot No. 117. %a tho awe day 8outhwyd Gohool Dlatrlot No* 117 votod oa raid ocm- ro%idrtlom. “The voter gollrd In Plarrwt Ham were 48, 30 for ooarolidation and 18 votar rgrlnlt ooaaolidation. The voter aaef la Southmayd woro 54, all for oomolidrtloa - rmo agohat. “Dorohrrtrr DWbriot No. 2IS ham, UPW prtitior rignrd by pWlO83. liv- lag ln,.oad prrmw owning propert in a port of Plmraat IIorpr Dlrtrirt No. 61, requort*dtho Qrayeon Couaty Sohool Bow4 to dotroh l p nr b ‘dth r ’ta r S- tow of thr original Ploarant Hama Dbtrirt and rtrtaok to Dwohortrr #3. “The quartiosi lnvolvrd~‘Door the County Board hare tiuthoritpr bo mrko detuobnont Imr Bouthnmyd Oonaol$datod Sohool Dietdot Ibe 117 and attaoh to DorohoBtbr District h SST” It in our underrtaading,‘from the abve quoted lettor and from a reoent oonfaraaoo with Xr. Ray Be Short, County Bohool Bupsrintendent of Graynon County, that the Plarrant HOBOCommonEohool Distriot No. 61 aad the 8outbmayd coxanomSahocl Dlrtriot No. 117 have been duly ad logalfy oonrolidatod and that the territory formerly oanprlsing the original two diatriets am oompri8ar the territory of a logally oonM.tuted nuw lion.Olan 8. VenZaudt, page 2 (O-6868) Consolidated conmcn school district known as Southma@/Ccamncn School District. We undar- stand further that you desire our opinion as tc whether the Counti School Board of'Grayson County is authorized to detach a portion of the Southmayd Consolidated ConsnonSchool District aad annex such territory to the Dorches- ter Independe~o~rict. The case of County SC 001 Trustees of Orange County V. District Trustees of Prairie View Ccmmcn ohool District No. 8, 137 T. 125, 153 S.W. 2d 434, inrrolvedthe question of-the authority of the County School Board to detach a portion of the territcry of a ocnmmn school district and annex such territory to an indpendent school district. In the opinion the Supreme Court pointed out that sn Act of 1936, which proposed to amend Article 2742f, was unconstitutional and held that the matter of detaching territory from a common school distriot and annexing it to an independent schaol district uas governed by Section 2 of Article 27420 and by Section 1 of Article 2742f,- construed together. In this connection, the Court said: "An examination of our statutes discloses the fact that when we eliminate the Act of 1935, this case must be governed by Section 2 of Article 2742e, Acts lQ29, 41st Leg., 1st C.S. p. 259, ch~.109; and Section 1 of Article 2742f, Bats 1929, 41st Leg., 1st C.S. p. 106, oh. 47. Board of School Trustees of Young County V. Bullock Common Sohocl Dist. No. 12, Tex. Comm. App., 55 S.W. 2d 538, 539. In the case just cited it was held:* Both of these acts mere passed in the year 1929, at the same session of the Legislature; and both were in effeot when the change in question was made by the county bard.* Further in the opinion it was held: 'It is to 'benoticedthat House Bill 25 concerns school districts generally, whereas the other act has reference to common school districts. It is further noted that the first-mentioned act contains no provision relative to notice and hearing3 whereas section 2 of the other act does.1 Finally the opinion holds: Ws are in accord with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals, in this case, to the effeot that the twoacts mentioned, having Men passed at the same session of the Lcgislat- ure, and bth comprehending the matter of authority in the ocunty beard of school trustees to change boundary lines of c-on school distriots, should be construed together as being supplementary to each other in the last- named respect.* As a matte r of convenience to those examining this opinion in the fcture, we deem it expedient to quote the two statutes nhioh we think govern this case. e~Sec. 2. (A%. 2742e) That on and after the passage of this Act the County Board of School Trustees in any county in this State shall have authority and full power tc create common school districts, to subdivide districts, and to change boundary lines of any or all oommon school districts legally oarsingunder the jurisdiction of the County Board of School Trustees, subject to the supervision of the District Court having jurisdiotion over the county where the County Board is appointed or elected; provided that before any changes may be made in %cunduy lines of school districts the trustees of the common school dir&riots affected shall be notified to appeap before the County Board for a hearing,and after said hearing, or the date _ .,- Hon. Olan VanSandt, page 3 (O-6868) set for said hearing, the County Board of Trustees may pass such order or orders as will carry out the provisions of this Aat? provided, further, that the trustees of the districts affeoted may appeal from the deaision of the County Board to the Distriot Court.' Aats 1929, 41st Leg., 1st C.S., po 259, oh. 109. s%o. 1. (Art. 2742f) In each county sf this S-ate, the county Board of Trustees shsll have the authority, when duly petitroned as herein provided, to detaah from and annex to any sohool distriat territory aontigu- ous to the common boundary line of the two districts; provided the Board of Trustees of the distriot to whiah the annexation is to be made approues, by majority vote, the proposed transfer of territory and provided, further, that where the territory to be detached exceeds ten per cent (lO$) of the entire district the petition must be signed by a majoritg of the trustees of said distr,ictin addition to a majority of the qualified voters of the territory to be detached. The petition shall give the metes and bounds of the territo- ry to bs detached from the one and added to the other district and must bs signed by a majority of the qualified voters residing in the said territory so detached. Upon receipt of the said petition, duly signed, and upen notice of the approval of the proposed annexation by the Board of Trustees shall pass an order transferring the said territory and redefining the boundaries of the districts affected by said transfer, the said order to be recorded in the Minutes of the County Board of Trustees, provided that no school district shall be reduced to an area of less than nine square miles.' Acts 1929, 4lst Leg., 1st C.S. p. 106, a. 47." ~fithfurther referenae to the statutory p-ovisions relative to the netice required and the hearing to be held by the Couu+y Board of Trustees be- fore territory may be transferred from ? c-on school distriat, in the case of Board of Trustees of Young County 0. Bullock Cemaon Sohoel Mstriot No. 12, Tax. Comm. App., 55 S.W. 2d 538, a'bovereferred to, the Court said: "So construing said a&s togotker leads to the conclusion that the Legislat- ure intended the pra$aion for notice and hearing, contained in section 2 of &use Bill 220 (Sec. 2, Art. 2742e) to operate as a limitation sf the authority conferred on the county board by the other aef (Seo.,l, Art. 2742f) so far as a change in the buadary lines of a oonmoa school i¶istriot is involved. Complianae with said provision was prerequisite to the exercise, by the county board of schoel trustees of Young County, of authority to ohange the boundary lines of the Bullock Commen School District, and, sinoe there was no suoh oomplianae, the order for such ohange was unauther- ieed and therefore is indireatly to the oourts, in the first instance, for relief against said invalid order." (Parenthesis ours) m view of the&we and foregoing, you are advised that the County Board of Trustees is authorised to detach a portion of the territory from a camnon school district and annex said territory to a contiguous in- dependent school distrist, mibjeot to the conditions prescribed by Sectioa 1 -i .. _ Hon. Olan VanZandt, page 4 (-6868) of gticle 2742f, and Section 2 of Article 2742~ He point out further that the Coun-@ Sahool Board is vested mith the discretion to determine whether the power given it by the above mentioned provisions shall be em- ereised in any given ease. (F'rosperIndependent Sohool Distriat V. Collin County School Trustees, 51 S.W. 2d 748, affirmed 58 S.11;2d 5). Under the above mentioned statutory provisions, the County Board of Trustees of Grayson County would be authorized to detach a portion of the Southmayd Consolidated ConsnonSchool Distriot and annex said territory to the Dorcboster Independent School M&riot subject to the following conditions: &, A petition setting forth the metes and bounds of the territory proposed ‘,JUe detached fromthe Southmayd ConaeUdated District signed by a Njority of the qualified voters residing in said territory must be submitted to the county Board. We aall your attention that the term, "metes and ~boundssis defined in Ballentine's Law Diotionary, p. 814 as follows: "The boundary lines and corners of a piece of land." In this oonneotion see Grand Lodge of the Order of the Sons of Hermann V. Curry, 108 S.W. 2d 5743 Lefler V. City of Dallas, 177 S.W. 2d 231. (We note further thsn when the territory proposed to be detaohed "exoeeds ten veercent (10%) of the entire District." the above mentioned oe- tition "must be signed‘by a majority of the Trustees of said Distriat in ad- dition to a majority of the qualified voters of the District to be detached".) 2...The Board of Trustees of the Dorchester Independent School District must approve, by a majority vote, ihe proposed transfer of territory. 3. "Before any changes may be made in the boundary lines" of the above named school districts, the Trustees of the Southmayd Consolidated District "shall be notified to appear before the County Board for a hearing." 4. Upon receipt of a proper petition and ths above mentioned motice of the approval of the propesed annexation bythe Board of Trustees of Dorchester District, "andafter said hearing, or the date set for said hearing," the County Board of Trustees, in its sound discretion, may pass an order trans- ferring the territory from the Southmayd Consolidated district to the Dor- chester District and redefine the beund?ries of said districts, "said order to be reoorded in the %&es of the County Board of Trustees." 5. MO district &all be reduoed to an area of less'thu nine (9) euuare miles. We point out further that the"trustees of the districts affected may apyaal from the decision of the County Board to the Distriot Court." &PROVED KAY 4, 1946 Yours very truly /s/ Carlo8 Ashley FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNFY GSNSSAL ATTORSSYGENSRALOF TEW JAS:djmr egm By /s/J. A. Ellis J. A.Sllis Assistant