## 690

OFFltiE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXA!S

AUSTIN

wtmaable EiomJri. kt58S Qounty Attoz’noy Wheeler, '%%a6 

### A 1

hoc1 Distrlat of with the Wheeler ity ahllben to the of the high aahool the whaalor Rlgh ncrlver a 

### flat

like to know uho i.6 obl.igrrtrd 

### te pap g of these student8who are ottendiry ohool.~ Ltagio

Qtp CSahool

Su net a
A fwther statementdlrroloaea that the tru8t@o8 of the' kgia City Sohool Diatriot ham rrfumd to pay any CrmmQcntation ,Ohrrger for the uhilldren whe

# hava

mmxb fit to attan 

### theWk Mg!a Sohool, henob the lssus premmtrd harm 6lrims.Bon. RoEp6rL. x055, Pws 2

In your brief, forwhich we extend our thanks, you point out that mtlole 2bS7a, Revised Civil Statuter, 19E5, ve6t6 authority %ri the local 6ohool tru6tee6 to make provi5lon for the trsnsportatlon of pu2ilr to and Iron oohool and that apparently a broad range of discretion is placed in the loo8ltru6tees in thi6 matter. The oo6t5 of furnishl:sg

suoh tren8

iortatlon 16 paid out of the looalmaintenanoe fund of tho school dietr ot (Art. 2027, B.C.E., 1928)which in 80~s instame and under osrtaln conditions 16 supplenientea by tbe Usite out of the SOho eqUall6ationaId appropriationedElni6t6redby the DepartEeent

or Eduoation and a Joint lmgirlstivsAdvlrory-CemItteai Artlole 2696, Revlaed Civil Statutes, 1925,whloh 18 the general transfer statute,provide6 that upon propsr transfer of a schola5tio the Ltete 'freaaurer nball pay over a6 dlreoted the per capita apportioment to the recelrine: dlstrlot or to the oounty superintendent for It6 benefit, but this statutedoes not refer to or afreot the 10081 malntenanoe funde. Our attentionha6 never been called to a statute requiringa transfrr of l.ooalmaIntenanoefunds
to the reoelvingdietriot unlese required tuition charge6 zulght **be** 50 oonsldered.

Prcvicrion

ie rcade

el6ewhere ln the 5ohool law8 for paygent of tuition for pupil8who are transierredwhen their grade6 nr6 not taug$imom, but these otatutes do not purport to ix&pose any obligationon the rendingdlstrlat to tumlsh transportation. See Lrtio1e5267Sa and 29221,Reri55d Civil statutee. 1926.

It ia our opinion that under the statement eubmittedby you the &a&o City Sohool District may not be required to pay the ooats oi~tran6porting6tudent6 frostthe U&O City Sohool to the &amock Independent Cohool Distriot, suoh atuaentehaving tranaterred to the Shamrock Iii@ Sohool.

Apparently your reguecit has be5n submitted to tblr Departmmt at the instanceof the County Superintendent of PubUo Inatruation. ~agyof the incidentalqu56tlons arising out ot the traneportation of puplla are largely rdmlnletratlve in their nature and are oloeely associatedwith the county wide transportationsystem~and 6puallzatlonaid law. Xe understand that the Department 0r xauoation snd the Join iel(lrletlve Advleory Comlttee haye proml~ated FSrlOU5 Interpretationsand re&etioncl whioh have been forwardedby the Department or Bduoation to all city and county euperintendentr. It 15 quiteprobable that these administrativedirectionsgay iurthek as&at the oounty superintendent. if our oplnlon herein expree55d 16 not

## 692

Emi. Eomer L. Boss, ?a@ S

guffioient to fully s&tie tbe controversy, we recommendthat lurtbar inquiry be first direoted to appropriate a&d.nistratir5oitioia~s. Your8 very truly 

# , BY 

# wd

cso ’Caxnaok <4

;t55i5tsnt