DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

QMfice of tip IZlttornep @enera 

&ate of Qexarr 

Honorable William R Ratliff 

Chair 

Educationcommittee 

Texas State Senate 

P.O. Box 12068 

Austin, Texas 78711 

December 20,1993 

Opinion No. DM-278 

Re: Whether the Dallas County Schools, a 

county school administration operating 

under chapters 17 and 18 of the Education 

Code, is a “school district” within the 

meaning of Education Code section 21.939, 

which places restrictions on lobby-related 

activities by school distlicts (RQ-610) 

You ask whether Education Code section 21.939, added in 1993 by Senate Bii 7, 

which generally restricts “a school district’s” employment of persons to engage in lobbying 

and related activities, applies to a “county school administration,” the Dallas County 

Schools. Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 347, § 3.05. Section 21.939 reads in part: 

(a) A school district may not employ a person who is required 

to register under Chapter 305, Government Code, by virtue of the 

person’s activities on behalf of the school district. 

(b) A school district may not employ a person whose primary 

duties are activities related to proposed legislation or administrative 

action, including supplying information to members of the legislative 

or executive branch, obtaining information from members of the 

legislative or executive branch, monitoring the progress of proposed 

legislation or administrative action, or acting as an advocate or 

proponent of proposed legislation or administrative action. 

Chapter 305 of the Government Code generally requires persons who spend or are 

compensated in certain amounts “to communicate directly with one or more members of 

the legislative or executive branch to influence legislation or administrative action” to 

register with the Texas Ethics Commission. The registration requirement also applies to a 

person who “as part of his regular employment” makes such communications, even if he 

receives no compensation for such communications apart from his regular salary. Goti 

Code 5s 305.002, 305.003.L 

‘We note that ‘he lasl szntellce ofsa3i0”305.003@) appwrs to oxanpt %n officer or employ& 

ef a political subdivision” from the trgistmtion mquimmcnts for petsons compensated to make the 

ammmications in question. We da not lmtlmadymltoaskaboot,m’dwcdonoladdresshem,bow 

this provision intcraar with the prohibition sc~ out in new Education Code section 21.939. See dso Gov’t 

D. 1457 
Honorable William R. Ratliff - Page 2 W-278) 

County school administrations, the statutory basis for which is found in chapters 

17 and 18 of the Education Code, are discrete political entities which are to a large extent 

vestiges of earlier times when counties and then these distinct county school 

administrations had a greater role in public education. See. e.g., Acts 1915, 34th Leg., ch. 

36, at 68 (permanent management and control of all public schools in a county placed 

under general management and control of county school trustees); Educ. Code 5 17.21 

(“body corporate”). These entities once played central roles in school operations including 

the creation, alteration, and abolishment of school districts within the county as well as 

stafling. The phasing out of county administration has been actively underway since 1978, 

when state funding for them was discontinued unless there remained common or rural 

(i.e., non-independent) school districts in the county. County administrations may now be 

fUnded through imposition of a “school equalization tax” under the “county unit system, as 

provided for in chapter 18 of the code, or voluntary contracts with independent school 

districts in the county. Educ. Code $8 17.94, 17.98. See generally 36 D. BROOKS, 

COUNTY AND SPECIAL DISTRNY LAW 8 30 (Texas Practice 1989); Attorney General 

Opinions H-1205, H-1136 (1978). Senate Bill 7, which adopted the provisions of 

Education Code section 21.939 at issue here also inter ah repeals chapters 17 and 18 of 

that code effective September 1, 1995. It is our understanding that currently “county 

administrations” in connection with the public school system exist in only a small minority 

of Texas counties. 

We understand that the Dallas County School administration, the subject of your 

request, primarily engages in providing certain library services and in providing 

transportation for students pursuant to agreements with the school districts in Dallas 

County. We understand tirther that it operates under the “county unit system” as 

provided for in chapter 18 of the Education Code. Section 18.01 of the code specifically 

characterizes such a county administration as “a countywide school dstrict which may 

exercise in and for the entire territory of the county the taxing power conferred on school 

districts by Article, VII, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution.” (Emphasis added.) See also 

Educ. Code $ 18.05 (referring to adoption of chapter 18 county-unit system as creating a 

“countywide school equalization district”). 

Finding a county administration not to be a “school district” within the meaning of 

the provisions of new section 21.939 at issue here would, we think, allow circumvention 

of the intent of that provision in those counties which happen to retain county 

administrations. Although they are discrete political entities, county administrations in 

their fimctions are clearly wholly ancillary to the “school districts” of the county, in the 

ordii sense of that term, which provide finding for county administrations, and with 

whose interests county administrations are necessarily closely aligned. Particularly in view 

of the specific references in the education code to chapter 18 county administrations such 

(footnote continued) 

Code 8 305.026 (requiring filing of disclonrrr statement when “political subdivision” uses public funds 

for lobby advitics, with exceptions); 1 T.A.C. 0 40.1 rf seq. (Texas Ethics Commission rules dating 10 

mgistmtion and regulation of lobbyists). 

p. 1458 
Honorable William R. Rathtf - Page 3 (DM-278) 

as the Dallas County Schools as “school districts,” we conclude that the Dallas County 

schools should be deemed a school district within the meaning of section 21.939 and thus 

subject to those provisions’ restrictions on lobby-related activities by school districts.2 

SUMMARY 

The Dallas County Schools, a county school administration 

operating under chapters 17 and 18 of the Education Code, is a 

“school district” within the meaning of Education Code section 

2 1.939, which places restrictions on lobby-related activities by school 

districts. 

DAN MORALES 

WJLL PRYOR 

Fist Assistant Anomey General 

MARYJCBLLBR 

Deputy Attorney General for Litigation 

RBNBAHJCKS 

State Solicitor 

MADELEJNB B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by William M. Walker 

Assistant Attorney General 

%‘ou do not ask about, and we do not hen address, the applicability of any othn provisions 

dirwtcd at ‘sebool districts” to county school administrationsuch as the Dallas County schools.