Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

.s¶-rsaxRaTsY “En-Ax- Honorable MotirlsRolston Opinion Wo. O-1599 County Attorney Re: Validity of teachers' Titus County contract. Mt. Pleasant, Texas Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your letter of October 18, 1939, In which you request an opinion of this Department as to the validity of a teachers' contract under the facts set out in your letter as follows: "The contract was signed by the teacher and the trustees of the Ripley Common School District of this County in May, 1939. The contract was approved by the County School Superintendent under date of September lst, 1939. An election in accord- ance with the provisions of Article 2806, after proper petitions from the two Districts and an order therefor by the County Judge, was held on August 3lst in said Ripley Common School District and Talco Independent School District, both of Titus County. Majorities voting in both Districts at said elections voted In favor of consolidation of the two Districts. However, the Commissioners' Court of the County did not canvass the returns nor declare the results of such elections until a few days after September lst, 1939, the date shown on the contract that It was approved by the County Superintendent. When such returns were canvassed, it was found to be and so declared that the election carried in each of said Districts favoring the con.solldatlonand the two Districts were consolidated under said Article 2806 and amendments thereto." Article 2750, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, provides, in part, as follows: 'Trustees of a district shall make contracts with teachers to teach the public schools of their district, but the compensation to a teacher, under a written contract so made, shall be approved by the county superintendent before the school is taught, stating that the teacher will teach such school for the time and money specified in the contract. * * +' Honorable Norris Rolston, Page 2 (O-1599) Article 2693, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, provides, In part, as follows: "The county superintendent shall approve all vouchers legally drawn against the school fund of his county. He shall examine all the contracts between the trustees~pad teachers of his county, and if, in his judgment, such con- tracts are proper, he shall approve the same; provided, that in considering any contract between a teacher and trustees he shall be authorized to consider the amount of salary promised to the teacher. * * +" On May 13, 1939, this Department rendered Opinion No. O-684, addre~ssedto the Honorable A; M. Prlbble, County Attorney, Goldthwalte, Texas, concerning a situation vhlch vas~analogous to the one in your case. In that other case, the trustees of the common school dlst~rlctcontracted with a teacher and subsequent to that time an election was or- dered to consolidate such common school districts with an independent district. After the election had been ordered, the contract was f'lledwith the county superintendent who approved It. The question was as to the validltj'of that contract. In answer to that question, Opinion No. O-684 reads, in part, as follows: "Article 2806, Revised Civil Statutes, provides a means whereby the qualified electorate of several school districts may vote to determine whether said school districts shall consolidate and be governed b the applicable laws pertaining thereto. Article 2is 09, Revised Civil Statutes, relating to consoli- dated districts, among other things, provides that 'acting in collaboration with the district superin- tendent, the board of trustees shall employ teacher's for the several elementary schools in the district or for the departments of the high school, which teachers shall be elected for one year or two years, as the trustees decide, and they shall serve under the direction and supervision of the district super- intendent.' "Our Supreme Court in State ex.rel. George V. Baker, 40 S.U. (26) 41, held: "ITo our minds, this suit presents but one question: Did the County Board of Trustees have the power to defeat the right of the People to by vote, determine the question as to whether the Honorable Morris Ralston, Page 3 (O-1599) district should be incorporated by're-districting the territory involved after theelectlonhas been duly and legally ordered and advertlsed, and while such election was still pending? We think that to state the question Is to give a negative answer thereto. "'It is our opinion, that even if it be con- ceded that the orders of the County Board with reference to the territory of District #lf5would have been in all respects legal In the absence of the pending election, still the right of the people to vote on incorporation, having been f lrst lawfully invoked, would not be interferred vlth or defeated by the County Board pending the holding of the elec- tion, and the.declaratlon of Its results.' *The people of the district referred to in your first question, having first invoked their right to vote on the question of whether their districts shall be consolidated, governed by the laws pertaining to consolidated school districts, and their teachers employed and directed by the board of trustees of the consolidated school dis- trict, we are of the opinion that the board of trustees of one of the consolidating districts and the county superintendent could not defeat their right to vote on this question under the facts presented and the action of the county superlntend- ent in approving these teachers contracts was pre- mature. Ws, therefore, answer your first question in the negative." It is the opinion of this Department that the rule announced in this prior opinion is correct and would apply in your case. In this prior c%se the county superintendent had approved the contract even before the election and the same was held to be invalid because it defeated the right and will of the people who ordered the consolidation elec- tlon. Certainly, then, In your case where the county superintendent did not approve the contract until the day after the election which consolidated the two school dis- tricts said contract would also be invalid. This 1s especi- ally true where the county superintendent had actual know- ledge of the result of the election prior to the time that he approved the contract. Honorable Morris Rolston, Page 4 (O-1599) It Is, therefore, the opinion of this Department that under the facts stated in your letter this teachers' contract 1s Invalid. ?ours very truly ATTORNEY OENERAL OF TEXAS BY a/ BILLYOOILWEXG Billy Goldberg Assistant BC+:RS-AM4 APPROVED Opinion Committee APPROVED NOV 2, 1939 By BWB, Chairman s/ GERALD c. MANN ATTORNEYGENERAL OFTFS O.K. GRL