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