Honorable **9.** T. **Kalters** County Auditor Smith County Tyler,Texas bar Sir: Opinion No. O-3660 Re: &at authority is vested in the County

Auditor 'of

Smith Countyto install,audsupervise the books and reoords of the ccmmon schools

of the OOunty? This will a&nonledge receiptof your request for our opinion on the hereinabove

oaptioned

questioo. v* quotefrm your letterasp follows:"Please

advise what authority

is vested in the Auditor of Smith County

to install

and supervise

the books and records

of the oosmsm schoo1.s of the county. **Art.** 1652- 1663,RCS, do not give enough information for me to know the dutiesand corresponding authorities

of ~this

office in the fiscalaffairsof the common sohools. "The records

of the CountySuperintendent's officeare not sufficient

for any auditorto ascertain the aorreotness of the vouchers

given by **the trustees**  of the oommon school' districts,

except for paymentof teachers salaries. In most case no invoice

or other evidence

of debt is furnished by the distriat

when requesting

the CountySuperintendent to issuevouohsrin payment3f a local bill. Xany of **these** requisitions

are signedby the superintendant of school,

or by one trJ~stee

for the entire board. A largenumber of bills are paid that run into hundreds of dollars

that simply shorn on the requisition

as "supplies." 'Ibis prevehts

a breakdown of expenditures

i:lto 'Janitor

Supplies,' 'Class

Room.Supplies' eta. "Mo;t of the Xstriots ore perfectIy willing

to comply with any reasonable request. Sme do not uant to sutmit any further

evideros

to the CountySuperintendent when requesting

payzent

of local bills, or bills from the looal funds.**Her. 3.**  T. ifalters, page 2 **O-3660**

"If it is the duty of the County Auditor to aur?i the CommonSchooldistriots, or the reoordsof the ..ounty Superintendent,

pleaseadvise i.?,

in your ~$.;nr, 5w oorreotness

of the vouohcrs

may be determined

fr:>n the enclosed

papersyhioh,

,.as stated !:b$ve,

coApri:.e ~11 the evidenoa

to be found in the Superintendent's office

. if not then what steps should be taken to onrroot the situation?" ;irticles

1662 and 1653, Fernon's Annotated

Xvi1 'tatutes

of Texas,read as followsr

:'.bt. 1652. SchoolLedger -- The aiiiiitor shall ins.te.11

in his offioe

a sohool ledger showing sn arourate

acoount

of all funds received and disbursed

by the oa-corschool

distriots

of his'oounty;

a bond register

she-::ti;g all the sohool bonds issuedby the ocemon. so;hool distriots

of his oounty,

their rate of interest,

tlate issuedand areturity dates and he shall also keep an interestand sinking fun? aooountof ouoh school bonds.
'At. 1633. To examine aoobunts;'--

Iis shall have continual

aocessto and shall e%%nine all the'books,

ao- : oounts, re'g,"rts,

vouohers

and other reoords

of any offioer, **the orders**  of the **~S6iOnOr~,O~Urf,~rolat~ng to**  fimmoes - of tho o~~cnty,

end all vouohers

given b the trustee of all comaorsohaol

districts

of the oouztyand shall :'.nquire into the oorrbotness

of 8atpp.a.

,, in .our lpinion Nos. O-2734 ‘and

O-2734+;heretofore rendered

by the present

administration

of this depal-tment, codes I? which are enclosed heretith,

it was held that it is na:+eto~that. the oountyauditor keep the sohonlledger mentior~d

in Artiale 1652, **supra~.** -A said Opinionho. **o-27346,** this dep&ent held that she o.:wrty auditor

was entitled

to examine

all boolcs

and. -covunts

i;cving to do with reoeipts and disbursements

in" oo~~ao;~ school districts,

and to examineall vouohers given by sue):

trustees. :twas there further held that the details

for suoh eltcr;ination should be worked out beizreen the auditor

and the respeotive

school 3oards,sinoo the

**s ’**  **;atute** is silent

on the subject. If any other construction was givenirticle1653 it vmuld be impossibie for the auditor to :ietarmine

the oorrectness.of

the voucher-

which the statute requires

him to examine for that pur~se. 'iron our examination

of the papers enclosed in your letter, whioh appearto be the "vouchers" gi7m by the,.. .-. -

Hon. B. T. Walters, page 3 0-36&l

.
trustees

of the oosmonschooldistriot, into the correotness

of which Article 1653makes it your duty to inquire,

we are inalined

to agreewith your opinion that you can&t determine their oorreotness

frcm the meager information contained

thereon.
As oountyauditor,.you are, of course, **not** authorized to pa88 on the legality of the voucher8

given by the : trustees,of

the oosm~n school

district;

nor:to disapprove them and therebyprevent their :payment.

Thoseduties are givento the oountysuperintendeat,by Artiole 2693, Vernon's

Annotated

Civil Statutes

which provides,

in part, as follows: "The county superintendent shall approve all.vouohers

legally

drawnagainstthe sohool fund of his'aounty. * * *" The quotedportion

of said statute

was construed

by Conmi8sion:of

Appeal8of Texas,SeotionB,'in Palmer Publishing

Cornpans vs:Zhaith,

109 S.R. (2d).l66. In thatoase the.plaintiff Publishing

Companywas the holder of numerous sohool

warrantsissuedby various oomaon 8ohool d$striots

of Titus County,.and allegedto have beensigned by a majority.of the trustees:of

the issuing -. diatriot. The oountysuperintendent of.publio

sohoole~ .rsfused

to approve

thesewarrants,

whereupon

a msndamus suitwas filed **agabst.hJm** to oompeltheir approval. ~The courtheld that mandamus did not lie since **the** plaintiff failedto 8how that it had first appealedfrom the superintendent's

deoision

to the countyboard of sohool trustees a8 provided

by Article 2686,

Vernon's

Annotated

Civil statutes. Mquote from the court's opinion

a8 follontrr "The olause 'legally drama againstthe school fund of his county,' as used in article2693, supra, undoubtedly

oonfers

upon hti authority

to decideas to~the legality of the fornof suoh vouchers. If we consider this language

in oonnection

with the 'educational set-up'

of each **oounty,** we have no doubt it goes furtherthan this and authoriees an inquiry

by him into the legality

of the indebtedness represented

by;suah voucher. lye

need inquiry

no further

than whether or not he.oe.npass

his jud@ent on any one Or more of the elements

whioh go into the making of a 'legally

dravm' vouoher,

and froa'suoh 'decide' its legality. Yie

thinkhis relation

to.the school, fund in a limitedsense is somewhat analogous

to that of a county

auditor

**with** respect

to:oounty

funds. .%;,Hon. B. T. Qklters,.page 4 O-3660

**.** "The oonclusion

that his said act of disapproval was not a void one follows necessarily

Prom the above.?
You stats in your letterthat "some districts do not want to submit

any further

evidence

to the oounty superintendent(than the sieager,statement as shown on the vouchers

enclosed

by you) when requesting paymentof local bills,or bills from the local funds." Under the authorities hereinbefore

mentioned

the. county superintendent

certainly

has the authority

--band we thnk it is his duty under the facts Suhnitted by you -L to refuse to approvesuchvouchers (as;submitted by you in your letter)

**on** theground that they do not disclosesufficiently detailed **information** for him to determine their legality. Any authority

given to boardsand offioers to'dramon schoolfunds is governed and limited

by the provisions

of the general statutes. Vouchers and warrants

also should

be approved

as orovided

by law. The manner in whioh those powers shallbe exercised, are presoribed

bystatute; and the course presciibed

by law **mU8t** be'followed.to the 'exolusion of all othermethods. 37 Tex. Jur. 968, Section97. Like other publicoffioers,sohool offioers'are :, responsible

for **any** wrongfil

or illegal

disbursement

or misspplioation

of sohoolfunds. **A** oounty superintendent and his bondsmen

have been held liable where the superintendent 'knowingly

and wrongfully

approved

vouchers

drawn on a fund which could only.be appropriated

to another purpose. 37 Tex. Jur. 971, Section99; Powell v. Mathews (Civ..App.)

260 3. !"I.

903. If the oounty suparintendentwould require

the trustees of the comaon school distriot

to give such detailedinformation in such vouchers as would appearto be necessary 5x1 order for him to properly determine

their legality,

as he is authorized

to do to avoid possible liability

on his bond, the county

auditor

would have no diffioulGy in determining thsir correctness

as required

of him in Article 1653.

:.e are of the opinion

that the Legislature, in charging the county superintendent and countyauditor

with their respective

duties %n aannootion *th vouchers

given by the trustnes

of c-on school

districts,

intended

that the suparintondent

and mditor cooperate in their respective duties to the end that the school accounts

will receivethe highest

degree of scrutiny

possible.
?FJstsss

of a conaaon

school~district

are else "public offiaers"

and must subscribe

to the o%th prescribed in theHon. B. T. -iihlters, page _?. '0-3660~

Constitution.37 Tex. Jur. 335, Section 68. Consequently, it is our opinion

that such trustees

are duty bound,under oaths of office,

to **oobperate** with the ccunty superintendent and the county

auditor,

and to give to such officers any information

concerning

-such vouchersthat may be reasonably necessary

for them to discharge their statutory

duties. The Constitution

(Article

5, Section24) and statutes (Articles

5~70-5YR7,

V. A. C. S.) ,give

to a district

judge _" power to removecountyoffioera for certain speoifib causes. Trustees

of independent

and comaon school

districts,

other than those in citiesthat have assumedcontrol of their schools, are comty officers

within then

meaningof the statutes providing for the removal

of countyofficers.. 37 Tax. Jur; 936, Section 68; i:imbrcugh

vs. Burnett,

~93, Tex. 301, 66,S.W.120. ?'fe are of the opinion

that a county superintendent, like; wise, is a county officer within the meaningof the statutes, supra,providing

for the,removal

of county officers.
In Conference

Opin&'Nc. 1824, reoorded'iri Bock 60, pages 1-7, rendered

by this department

on June:27,,1917~,

to the Honorable

9. L. Washburn,

CountyAuditor,

Houston',

Texas,~it was held~,

at page 6, as follows: "His (the countyaud~itor's) authority

to examine into the correctnessof.such~vouchers to our minds : was conferred

merely~for

the purp&s'of.giving him the right to audit au&vouchers and if in his judgment

the 881118

~uere.unlawfully

drawn to reporb the same to the properauthorities of the county, for such actionas might be indicated thereby."
In snswerto your question asto what steps'should'be taken '. by you to correct

the situation

as stated in the letter.from you, it is the opinionof this department that, under the authorities

hereinabove

discussed,

the following

course might aid you in your commendable desireto carry,

out your official duties. (1) You should suggest to the county superintendent **that** you and he, together, work .cut

a form of voucherthat will contain

a!? of the information that is needed by each of you for your respective duties. (2) After a suitable form has been agreed'upon the trustees

should be advisedthereof

and their cooperation requested

by the county superintendent.
As statedhereinabove, the manner in which such detailsBon. 9. T. Xalters, page 6 :O-3660

are to be worked out is within the discretion of the auditor and cannot

be pass&upon by this department. :';e are returningto you herewith the vouchers

sutrnitted

with your letter. Trusting

that wc have fullyanswered your inquiry,

we are Very trulyyours

By 's/Edgar

Pfeii Edgar Pfeil Assistant

APPROVEDJULY 22, 1941 s/Grover

Sellers FIRSTASSISTA?JT ATTORNEY

GXIJFXAL

ApprovedOpinionCommittee By BWB Chairmu -.