Case Information

*1 cc.. Gf sa OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Apprll 13, 193s / Eonorable T. Bi. 'i'rimble

First Assistant State Superintendent

Austin, 'terse

zje?lr sir;

ur hater or mxob 81u, .D, with the Qrsnr %S.D. ropwfticm in this pet%ttlon e Contsat Go\urty Llim C.8.D. OS t&l texrltory belong- Coleman Comty CM rttarh- OS ool%mam aouuty.

@rlndstefi uoubl like azwuarad I*: altlcpna b4 subm%ttad to Ml4 th% one petition, In the form h attachti?"' 3%~ follouing aopl4a of roaolotlons acw~paw ywar letteri *2 200. r. L . 'I‘rirnble, April 13, 1939, Rege 2

snd partly In Coleman Couutp, Texas, hereby petition your honor to order au election to be held on hprll 15th.

1939, at Content Schoolhouse in &mid Content Consolidated Coitnty ilne Common ; "chocl District No. 3, for the purpose OS determining whether or not that part of aaid Content Consolidated County-Line Common tchool District !?o- !', SF . and which lies and is situated in huunels County, Lex~ being more fully described in School histrict Reoord ~~~ of Ruuuels County, Texas, Vol. 1, Papa 97, shall be consoll- dsted f'or school urposcs with Crews Commoa ::choo bl;;Jg;ir in Idnels County, Yeres,sza;; M;F&Lbei, and for the further purpo 6 irhethar or’not that nart of the Content Coneolldat4d County-Lin4 Go-n School Dlstrlot Wc 3 hi h li4rr in 'Eobrmn county. Texas. mor4 fnu.~ a&ik:~ in School Dietriot Bsao& ot R&ale Oount$, T4xa8, Vol. 1, pa908 91 and 92, shall be oonsolldated for school 'PIIFPOIKI~ with the Rorlo4 Commm SohoolDlstrlot.888. in Coleman tiounty, Texas, aaId. dlatriot6 b4ing ooetlguous.

"Wltn4sa our hurds this th4 ZSrd day o? l@rch, 19S9. (Sl@md)" ~ --e-w

C-n Sahool Dlstrlctj3, which 114s and-1s atltuated~in Bunn4le Oounty,~ Tsxaa, and being more fully desorlbed in School Distrlot Recorda of Runnols County, Texas, Vol. 1, page 97, h4r4by maks applloation to the Donorable Nuntg Jwl~e or Runnsle County, T4xa8, for an 814oti@2n to b4 held on April 15th. 1939, at Crera Sohoolhourr4 ior the purpose of d4terminlng whather or not a majority of ths legally qualified voters of said dllrtrlct desire that Crews Consolldatad Common Sohool histrict #R, of Runnals County shall be consolidated with that Portion 6t Content Eonaolidated County Line Common School Metriot #3 that lies ti~iiy in tunnels county, Yerae. for school &rpoaea.

*Witn4sa our bands this the 23rd day of Maroh, 1939. (Signed)" *3 Her.. in. 2:. I‘rlnble, April 13, $939, Yaea 3

'i'hc facts subzitted with this request are neager and We have had sozce difficulty in determining whether the above petl- tions gurport to follow any particular statute or a combination 0r 1eCislative acts.

Articles 2806 and 20115, Kevised Civil Statutes, 1926, provide for the orfymlzation an& dlssolutlon of consolidated school districts. Article 2806 provides In part as follows:

",S;)n the petjtlon of twenty (20) or .a majority of the legally qualified voters of each of several contiguous common school districts, or cont=ua independant sohool- districts pray- for the oonsolidation of euoh districts ror school purpos%s, the Ootmty Judge shall issue an ordsr for an aleotlon to be held on the sams &ay ln oaoh suoh dlstrlot. . .*

Artiole ax.6 prorides: %uoh oonsolliIate& distrlots may in the same mnaor provided for their oonsolldatlon, bs dlssolved,and the: districts inoltadad theraln rastora4 to thakr orlp$nal~-. status, except that it 8bal.l not'ba n40484427 to provl6& polling place.8 in eaoh dfstrlot. Saoh:suoh dlstrlot whsn so restored shallassusm an4 bo liable.for its pro rata part of thq outstanding flnanolal obl&pHiloss of t&o oonsoli&sted dietriot, so* pro rata pert to be:.?maed oa the relation the total assessed valuation of all~property in the dlstrlof bears to fhs total assssss4 valuation of property in the oonsolldatsd dlstrlot, as shown by the aesessment rolls or the dlstrlot for the ourrant yr. No eleotlon for the dissolution OS said oonsolldata4 dlstrlots shall be held until three ysars have alapssd after the date of the eleoflon at which suoh dlstrlots were oonsolldated.*

without quotw same, we note aleo Artlole 874Zb, 8eC. 6a, contains ths same ess%ntlal elements material hero as Art1010 e806, except that it more speclfloally provides for esparats petitions

+ and requires the action of the County Board of Trustees in sach aounty.

Manifestly, the petitlone set out above 4r4 lnsuf~lclent to ootaply with our stetutes oii ooneoli6atlon of dlstrlots and dis- solution of consolidated districts. Articlqs &SO6 and %Pab, Ssc. Sa clearly contemplate the oonsolidatlon or tw6 or more *school dletricttP ae contracted to the d%taohment of a part Of a

HOE. T. t'. ?rirr.ble, April 13, 1939, Page 4

district aild attachment to another. Article 2815 clearly ccntelcplate. that wheo a consolidated district is dissolved the original districts shall return to their original status. IS this is to be a disaolu- tion and the districts returned to their original status, by what theory would the Colman County part of the dissolved consolidated district vote GUI the question of whether the iiunnels County part and the Crews Comon School histrict in Xunnels County should oon- solidate? In like manner, how viould the Runnels County portion after dissolution of the consolidated district join in a petition to call an eleotion on the question of whether that part of the old Content Consolidated District beiog in Coleman County should con- solidate -with Novice in Coleman County? That is a question purely between the consolidating distriots.

We do not think the patitltm IS rriflolsnt to oall au elao- tion to dlsrolve Co&ant Conrolldated Distrist under Artlola 8815. In the riret plaoe It doe8 not purport to be au l lsatlon to dls- ~olvs the oon8olIdetad distriot but one to deteoh It8 territory, (It not appearing rrom the facts $lvan whether this 4lvI~Ion hollows old district llnnse or not;) end then oonrolldete those dateohed portion8 with other dlstrlota. But If It should be eontended that a 4188olutlon I8 nsoeasarily oonsentad t0~i.n toting to oonsolidete Its parts with other diatrlots, we eel1 attantlon to tha saae of Consolidated Oo@mon Sohool Dlstrlot Wo. 5 v. Wood, (T 0 A 19957, Writ dIsmIssed), 1lS 8. W. (9) 851, whardn It we8 held that In order to oomply with that part of Article 7~3.5 whloh provldee that dlwolutlon may be effected In the same manner a8 oonaolIdetIon, one or mora petltlons, elmed by ZOTamty of the~le(pally quallrlsd voters ol aaoh of the rormerly e%ImtIng dlatrlots must be l eaurad and a petmn from the dlstrist asa'wh~le 2.8 ln8Pitl- .oient. Aooording to this oaaa, a pajorlty iota o? the aon8olIdatad dImtrIot a8 a whole would not be aurilolent to dIs8olte but there must be e majority vute in saoh of the old dlrrtrlsta.

We next oome to the question of whether the petition oomplies with Art&ale S745f providing for transfer of territory. klthout pasring upon the questlon ot whether 97481 applies to oon- solidated districts lying In two or more oountiea, we examine the provisions or this statute.

Artlole S745f, Aote 1986, 44th Leg., p:TQO, Ch. 559, % 2, prorides:

The petition shallgive the mete8 and bounds of the proposed district an'd be signed by a~mjorlty of .the ,. qualiried voters residing In eaoh territory to be dataohsd;" *5 Hon. 1~. L. ?rimble i April 13, 193Q, Z)ape 5

The plain vjordixq? of this statute is that the petition is to be signed, not by a majority cl’ the voters from the whole district but by.a majority “in each territory to be detaohed.r

Article 2742f further provides: that before any portion of any district has

n any pa&‘tiereof detached au eleotlon shall be held at which the qualified taxpaying voters of such diatrlct eoupht to be divided shall first vote by a majority vote to alvlde said distrlot and shall define the part of said original dletriot sought to be deteohed; . . .v Y'hs queatlon to be voted upon Is not whether a part of a dletrlot shall bo oonrolld.dbted with another but whather the dlatrlot ahall be qivlded end territory deteohed. Arter the voter8 glre their oonsant to the dl~l8lou, the County Boefl or Trwtees detaohes th? territory and etteohecl to another dlatrlot, oreatlug a new dl&trlot which we do not thluk we8 lnteuded~to be a~woou8011datod dlatrlot* as that term 1s used la Our statutes. Xradditlon to this, before the newly oreated dlatrlot la a Yallh dirtriot, the LeglUhtuI?e.mUSt IVktlfy the eotlon of the CoMty Board a8 provided lu the statute.

An addltlonai provlslon OS Artlole Pi4Sr 18: R . . . and provided further t&t the dlatrlot to whloh suoh territory is desired to be added aheii have au eleotlon at rhloh the qualliled taxpaying votera of mob orlgllml dlatrlot to whloh moh terrltmy Is sought to be added ehall~vote by a majority vote to assuue-that pMusrtloa&e f the Qistrlot rrom ~&ion Nob the detaohed territory beam to the orlginel~ dlatrlot from which deteohed, and at.aeld eleotlon only those quallfled taxpayiugvoters lnslde the territory of the newly formed distrlot tvhall.vbte.w The only pus&Ion voted on In this phase of the statute Is whether the lndobtednesa la to be assumed and not whather the territory shall be added. We note that the quest&m preaentqd In the Crsws Consolidated Distriot petition Ia whether it @hail be oonaolidated with a portion of the Content'DistrIdt and not whether lt,wIll esmme a proportionate part of the indebteduese. The word- ing of this petltlon lndloa~bs that the dlstrlots were attempting to oomply with Artlole SSO6 or ArtJole ST&b, Seo. 5, but aa pointed.out above, this it.'&8 noe'dolia.

Undoubtedly these petition8 wouid not satiety the pro- vision8 0f~Artlole ti74ar.

Hon. T. K. 'I'rfmble, April 13, 1939, rage 0

The view we take of these petitions renders the question of whether the propositions can be submitted in one petition wholly academlo. We are of the opinion that the fern: of the petitions submitted is insuffiolent to call an election for the purpose of dividing or dissolving Content County-Line Consolidated District No. 3 or to consolidate or attach ite parts to other school districts.

Yours very truly ATTORI4ZYGENERALOF?EXAS : :

.