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 

County to install,aud supervise the books and reoords of 

the ccmmon schools of the 

OOunty? 

This will a&nonledge receipt of your request for our opinion 

on the hereinabove oaptioned questioo. v* quote frm your letter asp 

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 duties and corresponding authorities of ~this office in 

the fiscal affairs of the common sohools. 

"The records of the County Superintendent's office are 

not sufficient for any auditor to ascertain the aorreotness 

of the vouchers given by the trustees of the oommon school' 

districts, except for payment of teachers salaries. In most 

case no invoice or other evidence of debt is furnished by 

the distriat when requesting the County Superintendent to 

issue vouohsr in payment 3f a local bill. Xany of these 

requisitions are signed by the superintendant of school, or 

by one trJ~stee for the entire board. A large number 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 County Superintendent 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 Common School distriots, or the reoords of the 

..ounty Superintendent, please advise 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. School Ledger -- 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 issued by 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? aooount of ouoh school 

bonds. 

'At. 1633. To examine aoobunts;'-- Iis shall have 

continual aocess to 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 

comaor sohaol districts of the oouzty and 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 oounty auditor keep the sohonl ledger 

mentior~d in Artiale 1652, supra~. 

-A said Opinion ho. 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 examine all 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 given irticle 1653 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 appear to be the "vouchers" gi7m by the 
,.. .-. - 

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

. 

trustees of the oosmon school distriot, into the correotness of which Article 1653 makes it your duty to 

inquire, we are inalined to agree with 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. Those duties 

are given to the oountysuperintendeat,by Artiole 2693, 

Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes which provides, in 

part, as follows: 

"The county superintendent shall approve 

all.vouohers legally drawnagainst the 

sohool fund of his'aounty. * * *" 

The quoted portion of said statute was construed by 

Conmi8sion:of Appeal8 of Texas, Seotion B,'in Palmer 

Publishing Cornpans vs:Zhaith, 109 S.R. (2d).l66. In 

thatoase the.plaintiff Publishing Companywas the holder 

of numerous sohool warrants issued by various oomaon 

8ohool d$striots of Titus County,.and alleged to have 

beensigned by a majority.of the trustees:of the issuing -. 

diatriot. The oounty superintendent of.publio sohoole~ 

.rsfused to approve these warrants, whereupon a msndamus 

suitwas filed agabst.hJm to oompel their approval. ~The 

court held that mandamus did not lie since the plaintiff 

failed to 8how that it had first appealed from the superintendent's deoision to the county board 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 against the school 

fund of his county,' as used in article 2693, 

supra, undoubtedly oonfers upon hti authority to 

decide as 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 further than 

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 think his relation to.the school, 

fund in a limited sense 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 letter that "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 payment of 

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 approve such vouchers (as;submitted by you in your letter) 

on theground that they do not disclose sufficiently detailed 

information for him to determine their legality. 

Any authority given to boards and offioers to'dram on 

school funds 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 shall be exercised, are presoribed bystatute; and the 

course presciibed by law mU8t be'followed.to the 'exolusion 

of all other methods. 37 Tex. Jur. 968, Section 97. 

Like other public offioers, sohool offioers'are :, 

responsible for any wrongfil or illegal disbursement or 

misspplioation of sohool funds. 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, Section 99; Powell v. Mathews 

(Civ..App.) 260 3. !"I. 903. 

If the oounty suparintendentwould require the trustees 

of the comaon school distriot to give such detailed information in such vouchers as would appear to 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 county auditor 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 receive the 

highest degree of scrutiny possible. 

?FJstsss of a conaaon school~district are else "public 

offiaers" and must subscribe to the o%th prescribed in the 
Hon. 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 vouchers that may be reasonably 

necessary for them to discharge their statutory duties. 

The Constitution (Article 5, Section 24) and statutes 

(Articles 5~70-5YR7, V. A. C. S.) ,give to a district judge _" 

power to remove county offioera for certain speoifib causes. 

Trustees of independent and comaon school districts, other 

than those in cities that have assumed control of their schools, 

are comty officers within then meaning of the statutes providing 

for the removal of county officers.. 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 meaning of 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 county aud~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 proper authorities of the county, 

for such action as might be indicated thereby." 

In snswer to your question asto what steps'should'be taken '. by you to correct the situation as stated in the letter.from 

you, it is the opinion of this department that, under the 

authorities hereinabove discussed, the following course might 

aid you in your commendable desire to carry, out your official 

duties. 

(1) You should suggest to the county superintendent that 

you and he, together, work .cut a form of voucher that 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 advised thereof and their cooperation 

requested by the county superintendent. 

As stated hereinabove, the manner in which such details 
Bon. 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 returning to you herewith the vouchers sutrnitted with your 

letter. 

Trusting that wc have fully answered your inquiry, we are 

Very truly yours 

By 's/Edgar Pfeii 

Edgar Pfeil 

Assistant 

APPROVED JULY 22, 1941 

s/Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTA?JT 

ATTORNEY GXIJFXAL 

Approved Opinion Committee By BWB Chairmu -.