Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0114

Request from Webb County Attorney asking whether a United Independent School District (UISD) trustee may simultaneously serve on the City of Laredo planning and zoning commission.
School trustees in Texas serve without compensation and thus are not offices of emolument under the Texas Constitution (Art. XVI, § 40(a)).
Planning and zoning commissions exercise sovereign municipal zoning functions (plat approval, comprehensive planning, variances) and are likely public officers under Aldine.
UISD trustees have authority over acquisition, title, and control of school real property under Education Code chapter 11.
Potential real-property interactions (platting, rezoning, siting of school buildings) create foreseeable conflicts between a trustee’s duties and planning-and-zoning decisionmaking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Art. XVI, § 40(a) prohibits dual service	§40(a) applies only to offices of emolument; trustee unpaid, so no bar	City/commission relies on common-law incompatibility rather than §40	§40(a) does not bar simultaneous service (trustee unpaid)
Whether common-law incompatibility prevents dual service	No self-appointment/employment; overlapping jurisdictions alone do not prove incompatibility	Conflicting-loyalties component applies because both positions are public offices with interacting duties over land use	A court would likely find common-law incompatibility due to conflicting loyalties
Whether planning and zoning commissioners are public officers	N/A (requestor acknowledged municipal sovereign function)	Commissioners exercise sovereign functions largely independent of others (platting, planning authority)	Commissioners are likely public officers under Aldine
Whether trustee duties conflict with planning/zoning duties	Trustee’s duties are limited to school governance; can recuse when conflict arises	Trustee controls district property and could face decisions where city action affects school property, creating divided loyalties	A court would likely prohibit simultaneous service because duties can interfere and harm public interest

Thomas v. Abernathy County Line Indep. Sch. Dist., 290 S.W. 152 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1927) (describes conflicting-loyalties incompatibility where municipal powers could direct school policy)
Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standley, 280 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. 1955) (defines public officer as one exercising sovereign functions largely independent of others)
State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (interprets "emolument" and discusses incompatibility standard)