The opinion
TH GENEEEAL
Hon. Heil McKay opinion Ro. V-876
County Attorney
Hopkins county Re$ Authority of county
SulphurSprings,Texas school board, acting
under Article VIII,
S.B.116, 5lst Deg., to
consolidate that por-
tion of dormant county-
line school district
which is situated in
Dear SIri another county.
We refer to your inquiry submitting in sub-
stance the folloving facts and questions:
Fairview C.S.D. is a county-line school
district, lying partly in Franklin County and
partly in Hopkins County, which is under the
jurisdiction of Franklin County School Board.
It is a "dormant district" as defined In Art-
icle VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature, and
thereunder must be consolidated with an ad-
joining district or districts.
On July 8, 1949, and without obtaining
the consent of Hopkins County Board, the
Franklin County school board acting under
Article VIII consolidated all of the Falr-
view county-line district with tb.e Mt. Ver-
non district in Franklin County. OnJuly
9, 1949, the Hopkins County School Board by
virtue of the provisions of Article VIII con-
solidated that portion of Fairview County-
line district lying in Hopkins County with
the Sulphur Bluff district of Hopkins County.
Questions 1. Does the Franklin County
Board have the authority, under the facts
and Article VIII, to consolidate all of Fair-
view County-line district (including that
portion thereof lying in Hopkins County) with
the Mt. Vernon district of Franklin County?
2. Do the county boards respectively of
Franklin and Hopkins County, acting under Art-
.. .
‘Hon. wei1 wiii~, page 2 (V-876)
lcle VIII, have authority only to consolidate
that portion of a dormant district uhich lies
vithin its respective county to an adjoining
district or districts?
The second paragraph in Article VIII, S.B. 116,
51st Legislature, provides that:
“If a county-line district is or becomes
dormant, as defined herein, the provisions of
this Act shall apply and be followed b the
several counties affected to the exten*theo
territory in each respective countyt- (mapha-
sis added.)
The provisions of the first paragraph of Arti-
cle VIII define *dormant” district and require the coun-
ty school board of the several counties to consolidate
each dormant district ‘within” the county by order of
the Board. The quoted second paragraph specifically
governs dormant county-line districts, that Is, dormant
dlstr,lcts whose boundaries comprise territory lying in
two or more counties. Its provlsions are clear and un-
ambiguous. It requires the county board of each county
by order to consolidate such portions of donsant county-
line districts which lie in its county with an adjoining
district or districts.
Where,for example, a portion of a dormant
county-line district lies in County A and the remaining
portion lies in County B, then the County School Board
of A may consolidate the County A portion with another
district in County A, and likewise B Board may consoli-
tit; the County B portion with another district in Coun-,: ._-
. Consent of counties to be affected by such divi-
sional consolidation of doraaant county-line distriats
under Article VIII of S.B. 116 is not required theSeu.u-
der . In this respect Article VIII is unlike other laws
concerning consolidation, detackrmsnt and annexation to
active county-line districts, which do require, in some
instances, cooperation and consent of respective county
school boards, county judges, district school boards,
and/or commissioners ’ courts. For example: Article
2806; Section 5b of Article 2742b; Section 2 of Article
2742e and Section 1 of Article 2’742f. as construed in
Count; School Trustees of Ryls County v. State,u;5
W* . ex.
see Attorney’General Opinion Ifo.'V-874 for instances
when consent is not required.
Hon. Well McRay, page 3 (V-876)
But in the exercise of the authority delegated
In Article VIII, county boards are limited to the extent
of the powers granted therein. Under this law the au-
thority of a.countg school board to consolidate by order
a domnant county-line district Is limited expressly “to
the extent of the territory of the county-line district
in its respectlve~county.
It should be noted that ArUcle VIII of S.B.
116 does not provide that that one county which has ju-
risdiction of the damant county-line district for admin-
istrative purposes shall consolidate the entire dormant
oormty-line district to an adjoining district or dis-
tricta. In this respect Article VIII is dissimilar to
Section 5b of Article 274213 and Article 2806 (providing
for CoI@olldatiOnS by election). These statutes do
authorize the county judge and the Commlssloners* Court
of the County which has jurisdiction of the county-line
school district for adminfstratlve purposes to perform
certain duties without the joinder of the like officials
of the other county or counties in which lies a portion
of the county-line dlstriot.
Aoccdlngly, it is our opinion that Article
VIII of 5.8. 116, does not authorise Franklin County
School Boartl to consolidate by order all of Faimiew
county-line district (a portion of which lies in Hop-
kins County) with the It. Varnon district of Franklin
county. Further, the county school boards of Franklin
and Hopkins County respeotfvely, are authorieed under
Article VIII of S.B. 116 to consolidate only that por-
tion of a dormant county-line district lying rfithin its
respective county with an adjoining distriot or dis-
:” tricts.
SUMMARY
One aountg school board, acting under
Article VIII, S.B. 116, 31st Legislature, Is
not authorized to consolidate all of a dor-
mant county-line district with an adjoining
dlstrlot In its oounty.
The county eohool board of each respec-
tive county in whioh territory of a dormant
county-line distriot lies is authorized, by
virtue of Artiole VIII, to ooneolldate by
Hon. IVeil McKay, page 4 (V-876)
order only that portion of such a dormant
district which lies within its county with
an adjoining district or districts.
Yours very truly,
A'M'ORIOFYGENERALOFTFXAS
CEO:bh:mw
Chester E. Ollison
Assistant
APPROVED
&ii2 2.h
V FIRST ASSISTANT
ATTORNEXGENFRAL
I