The opinion
c . .
RE ~ORNEY GENEKAL
OFTEXAS
Dr. J. W. Edgar Opinion NO. ~~-648
Commissioner of Education
Texas Education Agency Re: Validity of certain
Austin, Texas action taken at a
meeting of trustees
of an Independent
School District sub-
sequent to the elec-
tion but prior to the
qualification of newly
elected trustees who
were not notified of
and did not attend
Dear Dr. Edgar: said meeting.
Your request for an opinion recites that three
new trustees were elected to the Board of Trustees of
an Independent School District on April 4, 19%. On
April 14, 1959, six members of the old Board met at a
special called meeting. Verbal notification of the
meeting was given by the prlnclpal of the school to all
seven former members of the Board. The seventh member,
one of those defeated in the election, did~not attend.
One candidate elected on April 4, 1959, was present at
the meeting and sought permission to sit In, because he
had been elected and the business appearing on the agenda
therefor Involved next year's business. The Board voted
to go Into executive session, six voted therefor and the
newly elected member was asked to leave. The 'president
of the old Board (defeated at the election) presided
throughout.
Your letter recites that the minutes of the
April 14 meeting show that the Board read and approved
minutes, canvassed election returns, hired teachers,
recommended bus driver, employed cafeteria workers, em-
ployed janitor and approved classification of district
as a ten grade school. All teachers were given an addl-
tlonal extended year on their contract and two whose
contracts expired this year were each given two-year
contracts. The principal's contract was extended one
more year for a total of three.
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (~~-648)
The three new Board members were notified of
their election on April 23, by letter postmarked
April 22.
The newly elected trustees questioned the
validity of the April 14 meeting called for purposes
other than canvassing of the election returns, since
they were not notified of the meeting and were not
given opportunity to participate as newly elected
members In the transaction of school business affect-
ing the operation of the district for the ensuing
years.
Article 2750a-1, Vernon's Civil Statutes, reads
as follows:
'Trustees of any Common School
District or Consolidated Common School
District shall have authority to make
contracts for a eriod of time not in
excess of two (2P years with principals,
superintendents, and teachers of said
Common School Districts or Consolidated
Common School Districts, provided that
such contracts shall be approved by the
County Superintendent. No contract may
be signed by the Trustees of Common School
,, Districts or Common Consolidated School
iuntilthee
or trustees have qualified and taken the
oath of office." (Emphasis ours)
The foregoing Article prohibits trustees of Common
School Districts or Common Consolidated School Districts
from signing contracts with teachers subsequent to the date
of the trustee election and prior to the date of qualification
of newly elected members of the Board. This Article, however,
Is not applicable to Independent School Districts. We find
no provision of the statutes which so restricts the authority
of the Board of Trustees of an Independent School District.
Attorney General's Opinion 0-765 (1939) held that
valid contracts with principals, superintendents and teachers,
not In excess of the period authorized by statute, may be
executed by a majority of the Board of Trustees of a Condoli-
dated School District although such contracts are signed after
an election for trustees has been held in the district and be-
fore the newly elected trustees have qualified and taken the
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 3 (~~-648)
oath of office. Thla opinion was written prior to the
enactment of Artiole 2750a-1 In 1941.
Since the,Legisliture has not seen fit to restrict
the contraotlng authority of Boards of Trustees of Independent
Sohool Districts prior to the qualification of newly elected
trustees, as it has done In the ease of Common School Districts
and Common Consolidated School Districts, we are compelled to
hold that the action taken by the Board of Trustees at the
April 14 meeting is not Illegal merely because taken prior to
the qualification of the new Board members. Artlole 2779 of
Vernon’s Civil Statutes authorizes and directs that the trust-
ees shall meet within twenty days after the election or as
soon thereafter a8 poesible for the purpose of organizing. We
find no statutory restrlotions upon the authority of the old
Board to administer the affairs of the school district until
such time a8 the election returns have been canvassed, certl-
flcates of electlon issued to the newly,elected members and :
the latter heavequalified. According to your request, It ap-
pears that these steps ,were aooomplished In the manner and
within,the time presoribed by law in the instant case.
Business transacted and oon-
tracts entered Into by a
Board of Trustees of an Inde-
pendent School Diatriat, under
the faots stated, are not Illegal
merely because occurring aubse-’
quent to the election of three (3)
new trustees but prior to their
qualifying for office.
Very truly your8,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General of Texas
Leonard Pasamore
Assistant
LP:rm:mfh
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (~~-648)
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
C. K. Richards, Chairman
J. Milton Richardson
Marvin H. Brown, Jr.
Marvin R. momas, Jr.
RBvIEWFJ3FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. V. Geppert