Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

TTORNEY GENEKAL OP TEXAS Honorable Tom Coleman, Jr. County Attorney Angellna County Lufkin, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-2398 Re: Authority of County Superinten- dent to refuse to approve teachers' contracts. We are in receipt of your letter of gag 18, 1940, re- Questing an opinion by this Department, which reads in part as follows: "The Zavalla Consolidated School District held an election at which a further consolidation was affected. Thereafter the County School Board ap- pointed a new board of trustees for the district. During the year various differences arose between the Superintendent of the local district and the High School Principal. This led to serious trouble in the district and division in the community and among the pupils. Prior to the elections for new trustees the appointed board gave contracts to several of the teachers, including the Principal, but not including the Superintendent,for the fol- lowing year. This became one of the issues in the election of trustees in April, at which time all of the appointed board were defeated by a large vote. The new board promptly gave a contract to the Super- intendent. The County Superintendent is of the opinion that the best interests of the school would be served by denying both contracts, that is, by refusing to approve the contracts of both of the teachers in view of the personal feeling between them, the factions among the school children, which would be kept alive by the presence of both teachers on the faculty, and the feeling in the community a- mong the patrons of the school. Accordingly, I am requesting an opinion on the following question: Under conditions as explained above, does the county school superintendent have the power to refuse to approve either or both of the teachers' contract?" . - Hon. Tom Coleman, Jr., page 2 O-2398 Please accept our thanks for the brief of authorities accompanying your request. In the recent case of Peevy v. Carlile (not yet re- ported) the Supreme Court stated: "In the present suit the County Superintendent had presented to her a legal contract within the meaning of the statutes governing its execution. It bound the teacher to perform the service. The salary was within the revenues of the school dis- trict and would not create a deficiency. The teacher was qualified to teach. In a word, the contract was legal in form and substance under the law which authorized its execution. The County Superintendent refused to approve it for the rea- son that she considered it to be to the best in- terests of the school that the scholastics thereof should be sent to a nearby district for their in- structions. The law does not give her the au- thority to disapprove the contract for that rea- son. The refusal to approve the contract for the reason stated was without authority of law. There- fore the writ of mandamus should Issue in accordance with the prayer of Mrs. Peevy and the school dis- trict, as was held by the trial court and the dis- senting justice of the Court of Civil Appeals. Miller vs. Smiley, 65 S. W. (2d) 417 (Writ refused). In the case of White VS. Porter, 78 S.W. (2d) 287, it is said: "'If the special facts and circumstances in the given case give rqse to no valid reason or ground in law for his refusal, then it be- comes his official duty, entirely nondiscre- tionary and ministerial in character, to ap- prove the contract, and, upon refusal, to ap- prove the same mandamus will lie to direct its performance. Article 2693, R.S., cited by ap- pellees, does not vest in the county super- intendent the unrestralned power to decline, at his will and without lawful reason, to approve a valid contract with a school teacher, when it is proper in form and substance and duly ex- ecuted by the trustees. To hold otherwise would render void the power and authority vested by article 2750, R.S., in the trustees to select from the qualified applicants the teacher of their choice, and to make the proper contract with such teacher to teach the school term.' r . Hon. Tom Coleman, Jr., page 3 O-2398 "We approve that statement of the law. "A careful study of the cases of Thomas v. Taylor, 163 S.W. 129 (writ refused) and Vanlandingham v. Hill, 47 B.W. (2d) 641, convinces us that those cases do not con- flict with our holdings in this and other cases cited." Although the County Superintendent may exercise his discretion as to certain matters in passing upon teachers' contracts, we find no provision in law which aut+horizeshim to refuse approval of a teachers' contract for the reason that in his opinion it will be to the best interest of the school generally that such contract be disapproved. It is our opinion that the County Superintendent of Schools is not authorized to refuse to approve contracts with the teachers and a superintendent of the consolidated school district in question under the facts as presented. We enclose herewith a copy of our opinion No. O-2284 upon a related question. Very truly yours ATTORNEY GERERAL OF TEXAS By s/Cecil C. Cammack Cecil C. Cammack Assistant CCC :N:wc APPROVED JUN 18, 1940 s/Gerald C. Mann ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman