.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