TEISATITORNEY GENERAL GERAID C. MANN -ON AllolRNEY G-SRAL Honorable T.-.&l. Trlmble First Assistant State Superintendent Austin, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-1129 Re: Transfer of scholastics We are in receipt of your letter of July 13, 1939, in which you request the opinion of this department upon the fol- lowing questlons: "Question 1. If a county superintendent per- forms a mandatory function as directed by the statu- tes, how can this mandatory act of the county super- intendent be reviewed by the county board of trus- tees? "Question 2. If, ln your finalngs, you can- elude that the mandatory act of transferring pupils by the county superintendent cannot be reviewed by the county board of trustees, will the sole power to transfer scholastics from one district to another rest with the parent or guardian of the student ap- plying for transfer?" Article 2696, R. C. S., 1925, provides In part as fol- lows: I, . D . provided that any district or independ- ent district being dissatisfied with any transfer made by the County Superintendent may appeal from such action to the County Board of Trustees of 8ald county who shall have the right to annul and cancel the transfer allowed by the County Superintendent." Whether a transfer shall be made from one district to another Is primarily of Interest to the parents of the child sought to be transferred and the two affected school districts. No provlslon Is made for an appeal by a parent who Is dlssatls- fled with the action of the County Superintendent and none Is necessary since the transfer will be made if the application is properly and duly filed,. If, however, an Interested school dls- trlct is dissatisfied with the transfer, it Is expressly given the right to appeal to the County School Board, which Is vested Honorable T. M. Trlmble, page 2 O-1129 with the general management and control of school affairs in the county, and upon such appeal being perfected the County Board then may properly Inquire into the question of whether such transfer should.be set aside in the interest of the proper ad,mlnlstratlonof the school, subject to any statutory llmita- tlon. Although no detailed procedure Is set out for perfsct- lng such an appeal, we do not think this would be sufficient to defeat the right of a school district to make application and appear before the Board for a determination of the Issues presented. If the school districts are not dissatisfied with a transfer made within the statutory limitation, no appeal will be presented, and the ministerial action of the County Super- intendent will effectuate the desires of the parent. In short, the statute merely makes the County Board of School Trustees the tribunal before which disputed transfers will be heard and determined and not the County Superintendent. In answer to your first question, it Is our opinion that the action of the County Superintendent in performing his ministerial duty In entering a transfer of a scholastic may be reviewed by the County Board of Trustees upon proper appll- cation to such Board by an interested school district. Having determined that the action of .the County Super- lntendent In transferring pupils can be reviewed by the County Board of Trustees, your second question does not require an answer. Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEAS By s/Cecil C. Cammack Cecil C. Cammack Assistant ccc :mr:wc APPROVED JULY 24, 1939 S/U. F. Moore FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNl3YGERERAL Approved Opinion Committee By TDR Chairman
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion