R-145 

Ho& W. H. Crunk 

Caumty Attorney 

Delta County 

Coaper, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Re: Approval of School Bus 

Driver Bead by County 

School Beard where 

School District is receiving State aiU untier Article V, Acts 

1945, 49th Leg., R.S., 

Senate Bill 167. 

We refer to your letter of recent date acknowledged by the Attorney General on February 19, 1947,wherein yeu requested an opinion on the question and facts submitted therein, in substance, as follows: 

The Board of Trustees of the Enloe 

Inaepgnaent School District of Delta Count.. 

ty umaer previsions of Article 2687a, 

V.C.S., has authorized the drivers of t&eir 

scrhcel busses to execute.bond in the ameant of $3,000.00 with personal sureties 

rather than corporate sureties. The County Sakoel Beard has advised the District 

that it may authorize the making of personal surety bonds provided the same shall 

be submitted to the County Board and approved by it, 

Under provisions of Article V, Transportation Aid, Acts 1945, 49th Legislature, 

R.S. Senate Bill 167, school districts 

qualifying thereunder are entitled to State 

transportation aid to be disbursed by the 

County Board and to be paid out of thecount$,Bloe;d Transportation Fund designated in 

The Enloe Independent Sohool District i;l entitled to and is receiving State 

aid cut of this Fund. The School District, 

however, refuses to reoognize any authority 

in the County Sohool Board to make any requirements affeoting its power with refer- 
Hon. W. H. Crunk - Page 2 (V-139) 

ence to its School Bus Driver Indemnity 

Bona. 

Question: Under the facts submitted, are the statutory bonds required 

by the Enloo Independent School District, 

acting under Article 2687a, V.C.S., to be 

executed by the drivers of its school 

bussea, subjeat to the approval of the 

Delta County School Board, where the School 

Distriot is receiving State aidunder pro- 

.visions of Article V, Aots 1945, 49th Iegislature, R.S., Senate Bill 1679 

It is our understanding in view of the above 

submitted facts that the Enloe Independent School District, acting under the provisions of Article 2607a, is 

providing for the transportation of pupils of and within 

the confines of the district, contracting for the’ employment of one or more drivers of its school busses, and is 

paying the cost of said transportation and salaries of 

said drivers out of its local school funds ana Sta,te aid 

funds to which the distriot is entitled under Artiole V, 

Aots ‘1945, 49th ‘Legislature, R. S,, Senate Bill 167. 

We have been advised ,further, in ~conferenoe, 

with the Department of Education, that the district la 

question has two bus drivers, both of whom are under oontraot with the District Board and both of whom transport 

pmplils- of and within the district as well as certain 

pupils from surrounding districts into the local district. 

The Enloe District ha8 made application for t$ansporta-~ 

tion aid under the provisions of Article V, Senate Bill 

167, ana is receiving needed aid thereunder. Further, 

the system of transportation bears the sanction and approval of the County Superintendent, the Delta County 

School Board and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, acting under and by virtue of the provisibns 

of Article V, Senate Bill 107; which authorities acting 

in cooperation with the Enloe District, have devised and 

approved same as being the most economical transportation 

system possible. The bus drivers have been authorized to 

go without the Bnloe District for the purpose of transporting certain pupils attending schools within the district by virtue of an employment contract required of all 

bus drivers by the County Board who operate busses for 

districts receiving State aid under Article V, SenateBill 

167, end all bus drivers who operate busses authorized 

to cress dfstriot lines, We are advised also that the 
Hon. W. H. Crunk - Page 3 (V-139) 

Co&ty Board has required that all bus drivers under 

contract to it, as a condition of the contract, conform to the provisions of Article 2687a, which, among 

other matters, provides for the execution of a bona. 

Article 2687a of Vernon's Statutes relates 

to the intradistrict transportation of pupils. It provides ror the making of a contract by the trustees of 

an independent or common school district for suchtransportation and presoribes that the drivers shall be required to give bond, payable to the district, for such 

amount as the Board of Trustees of.the district may 

prescribe', not less than $2,000.00, and contains other provisions not necessary here to state. .Robinson 

vs. Draper, 133 Ter. 280, 127 S. 1%'. (2) 181. 

Article V of Acts of 1945, 49th Legislature, B.S., Senate Bill 167, relates to the interdistrict as well as the intrrdiatriot transportation of 

pupils. It provides that the Ceamtg School Board and 

County Superintendent, subject to the approval of the 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction, may set up 

the most efficient system of transpertation possible 

for the purpose of tranap8rting pupils from their districts and within their districts. It further provides 

for the making of a contract by the County Board of 

Trustees for bus drivers for such tranapertafion and 

the payment of salaries of same out of the CountyBoard 

Transportation Fund when said bum drivers are employed 

by the County Board, and that the County Board of Flduoation shall aistribate funds im the County RoardTnnsportation Funds equitably te the eligible districts who 

have properly shavn budgetary need for State aid in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 

There is no statutory provision in Senate ., 

Bill 167 with reference to a bona to be exacted by the 

County Board in oonnection with any contract which'it 

might make for the transportation of pupila. When, however, a County School Beard, acting under the provisions of Utiole V, Senate Bill 167, employs bus drivers 

for imterdistriot ar int~diatriot transportation ef 

pupils in its mest economical system or transportation, 

said Board acting within its sound discretion may require the drivers to eYecute bonds similar to the statutory bond requiredwE Article 2687a. Such authority 

naturally carI'$~es with it the right to approve such bond. 
Hon. W. H. Crunk’- Page 4 (V-139) 

Article V, Senate Bill 167, contemplates 

that a scho,ol district may continue to ~set up and operate its own transportation system for pupils within 

the district under Artiole 2687a when a district prefers to so operate same exclusively and does not make 

application for State aid. In such a case the statutory bond required under Article 2687a would not be 

subject to the approval of the County Board. 

On the other hand, Senate Bill 167 clearly purports and is designed to give State transportation aid to those school districts showing need and 

making application for financial assistance, and in 

such instances the County Superintendent and County 

School Board are authorized and directed to set up 

the most economical system of transportation. In attempting to conform to the provisions of the Aot, the 

County Board has established the policy of allowing 

the eligible sohool districts to contract for the employment of their own bus drivers. Since the District 

Board’s jurisdidtion is confined to the limits of its 

district and the bus drivers so employed are to transport pupils both within and without the distriot, the 

County Board has deemed it necessary to place said bus 

drivers under like contract, thus, enabling the bus 

drivers to perform both interdistrict as well as intradistrict transportation. As a matter of polioy also the County Board has required that all such bus 

drivers shall, as a condition of their employment) 

conform to the provisions of Article 2687a by executing a bond in accordance therewith, and if approved 

by the Board, no additional bond is required. 

In the present case, the County Board may 

require a second bond if it is not satisfied with the 

District bond and if it deems another bond necessary 

for proteotion of the children transported, In other 

words, the County School Board has no authority to approve a bond given by a bus driver to an independent 

school district.~ if the transportation is limited to 

students within the district and financed by the district. On the other hand, if the school district is 

operating the bus for transportation of pupils within 

end out of the Distriot and is receiving State aid under Senate Bill 167, 49th Legislature, this is a joint 

operation, and the County School Board has the right 

to either approve the bond given to the distriot or to 

require a separate common law bond. 
Hon. W. H. Crunk - Page 5 (V-139) 

Xhen independent school district bus 

drivers are transporting pupils both from 

within and out of the school district end' 

receiving State aid under Senate Bill 167, 

49th Legislature, the County School Board 

has the right to approve the school bus 

drivers bond to the district or it may require a second bond for the protection of 

the children being transported. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENEFzAL OF TXXAS 

CEO:ejm:wb 

Chester $. Ollison 

Assistant 

APRIL 11, 1947