OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
opinion lo. o-3690
Ber whether mtiperlntendent of Ini
dawndent aahool dirtr%ot may
‘at-the lametimeserve.ar aeime-
tary of ,the board of trurteea.
letter of Dotober 9, 1941, vhioh
“said trwtees’uhallmeetwithin twetity days
after’ the eleotion, or aa.aoon’thereaiter as possl-
,ble, for the purpose of.organising. A majority of
said board &all odnstitute a Quorum to do businers.
They shall ahoose from.thelr number a prealdent,
and.they ahEll ohoow aa~WQ?2Wy, a tr!asurer, as-
eeeaor and collector of~tax@#, and other neoeaeary
‘oifloers.and oommitteea.’
c The emplojnnent of a auperlntendent ia governed by Arti-
fZ&J, Revised Civil Statutea, whiokve quote aa follovs:
392
Honorable 1. A. Woods, page 2
"The Board of trustee8 or any ofty or tovn
OP any independent aohool biatrlot mar employ a
superintendent, prinoipal, teacher, OP other exeou-
tire offioera in the aahoola therein for a term not
to exeeed~thwe yerud, provided that the Board of
truateea of an tidependant aehool dirtriot vhioh
ha&a aoholaatio population 0f.5~000 or mope lnthe
last preoedlng aahoJ*at&o yew may.employ a .aupe~-
lntendent, prinOipa1, teacher, OP other executive
offloera tn the rohoola therein ror a term not to
exoead five yeara. All~tvelve-month oontrahtr made
by truateeb of lndepeudent lohool diatriota witQ
employee8 herein mentioned ahall begin eon July
‘. j. .‘.. firat and end on June 30th ofi the yeas terml.Mt-
.; ing the eonfiraotim i
You vant to know whether the superintend& of school8
~2% may alao nerve aa aeoretary OS the board ot truateea. Ue are of
r-‘
;’ . Ii* ogd.nlon that--he omlaot.-
,,~. 4,. ’ ;
It $8 aettled~lav iri Tda that-the ‘same person cannot
ii .hold :two lna~tible offloea . 9 Tex. Jur. 3%; Kugle v. Olen
Bore Independent Sahool Matriot, 50 S.Y. (2d) 375. .Offigea are
inoomp8tlble.ii the dutlea attached to one’are fnoonalatent or in
wrUl.iot tith the dutiSa attaahed to the other. Thomae v. Abernathy
Oounty-U.ne-Indbpendent Sohool Matbiot, 290 S.Y. 152.
lie believe that the dutPei-attaohed to the office of
superintendent ol.an independent aohool dirtriot are inoonaiatent
rlth those o? eeoretary to the board.of trnrteeq of such dletrlot.
Ye quote the iollovlng lknu’the ~oplnlon In the Abernathy case,
olted above:
.
“In OUT opinion the offiCier of aohool truatse
and elderman are 1noompatlble;‘~for. under our eya-
tern there are in the oity oounoll or board of alder-
men va~ioua dlreotory add 8uDervirory povera exert-
able lwreapeot to aohool property looated vithln
the oity or town and In reapeot to the duties of
aohool trustee per$ormable vithin ita llmite....”
(Emphaaie supplied)
The aeoretary generally signs oontracts made by the board
or trueteea and warrants OS the diatrlot to ita teachers a& em-
RlOyeea. If the mmretary were also.auperlntendent, he would then,
‘,
393
Bonorable L. A. Woods, page 3
am seoretary, sign him ovn oontr6kgt and the varrant to him ln hia
oapaoity am superintendenti.Th6~aeoretary is ~eaponsible iOr the
mlnutea of $he various meethga of the,board, and he must be pre--
rent at the meetings to reoord what transpired therein. -He Vould
be present vhen matters relating to him ai l uperlntendent would
be dlaouased. He vould be In e positionto lnfluenod ‘hembermof
the board, bnd ,they oould not hot am ireily were the auperrint&l&nt
totally dlaoomeoted vith theis meetings. While vex-+at preaome
that he vould~ OPFJ out the dutiea~of both,oriioea p-&perly aud ao-
oording to law, this presumption does not ellmlmte the above men-
tioned inoonaiatenoiea~
It la the opinion oi this depkmnt, tharefore, that
the offioes are lnooaipatible. Aeoomllngly, your, question is an?-
vered In th6 IwzqwVe.
Very truly you-8
ATTORRBYORRRRALOY TgULS