cc.. Gf

sa

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** AUSTIN
Apprll13, 193s /

**Eonorable** T. **Bi.** 'i'rimble First Assistant State Superintendent Austin, 'terse zje?lr sir;

ur hater or mxob 81u,

.D, with the Qrsnr %S.D. ropwfticm in this pet%ttlon e ContsatGo\urty

Llim C.8.D. OS t&l texrltorybelongColeman Comty CM rttarhOS ool%mam aouuty. @rlndstefiuoubl like azwuarad I*: altlcpna

b4 subm%ttadto Ml4 th% one petition,In the form h attachti?"' 3%~ follouingaopl4a of roaolotlonsacw~paw ywar letteri200. r. L
. 'I‘rirnble, April 13, 1939, Rege 2

snd partly In Coleman Couutp, Texas, hereby petition your honor to order au election to be held on hprll 15th. 1939, at Content Schoolhouse in &mid Content Consolidated Coitnty

ilne Common ;

"chocl District No. 3, for the purpose OS determining whether or not that part of aaid Content Consolidated County-Line Common tchool District !?o- !', which lies and is situated in huunels County, Lex~ being more fully describedin School histrict Reoord ~~~ 

## SF

. and of Ruuuels County, Texas, Vol. 1, Papa 97, shall be consolldsted f'orschool urposcs with Crews Commoa ::choo bl;;Jg;ir in Idnels County, Yeres,sza;; M;F&Lbei,

and for **the** further purpo irhethar

or ’not that nart of the Content Coneolldat4d6 County-Lin4Go-n School DlstrlotWc 3 hi h li4rr in 'Eobrmn county.Texas. mor4 fnu.~ a&ik:~ in School DietriotBsao& ot R&ale Oount$,T4xa8,Vol. 1, pa908 91 and 92, shall be oonsolldatedfor school 'PIIFPOIKI~ with the Rorlo4 Commm SohoolDlstrlot.888. in Coleman tiounty,

Texas, aaId.

dlatriot6b4ing ooetlguous. "Wltn4saour hurds this th4 ZSrd day o? l@rch, 19S9. (Sl@md)" ~

--e-w

C-n Sahool Dlstrlctj3, which 114s and-1s atltuated~in Bunn4leOounty,~

Tsxaa, and being more fully desorlbed in SchoolDistrlotRecorda of RunnolsCounty, Texas,Vol. 1, page 97, h4r4bymaks applloationto the DonorableNuntg Jwl~e or Runnsle County,T4xa8, for an 814oti@2n to b4 held on April 15th. 1939, at Crera Sohoolhourr4 ior the purposeof d4terminlng whather or not a majority of ths legally qualifiedvoters of said dllrtrlct desire that Crews Consolldatad Common Sohool histrict #R, of Runnals County shall be consolidated with that Portion 6t Content EonaolidatedCounty Line Common School Metriot #3 that lies ti~iiy in tunnels county,Yerae. for school&rpoaea. *Witn4saour bands this the 23rd day of Maroh, 1939. (Signed)"Her..in. 2:.I‘rlnble,

April 13, $939, Yaea 3

'i'hc facts subzitted with **this** request are neager and **We** have had sozce

difficulty in determining whether the above petltions gurport **to follow**  any particular statute or **a** combination 0r 1eCislative acts.

Articles 2806 and 20115, Kevised Civil Statutes, 1926, provide for the orfymlzation an& dlssolutlon of consolidated school districts. Article 2806 provides In part as follows:

",S;)n the petjtlon of twenty (20) or .amajority of the legally qualified voters of each of several contiguous common school districts, or cont=ua independant sohooldistricts pray- for the oonsolidation of euoh districts ror school purpos%s, the Ootmty Judge shall issue an ordsr for an aleotlon to be held on the sams &ay ln oaoh suoh dlstrlot.

. .* Artiole ax.6 prorides: %uoh oonsolliIate& distrlotsmay in the same mnaor provided for their oonsolldatlon, bs dlssolved,and

the: districtsinoltadad theraln rastora4to thakr orlp$nal~-. status, except that it 8bal.l **not'ba** n40484427 to provl6& pollingplace.8

in eaoh dfstrlot. Saoh:suohdlstrlotwhsn so restored shallassusm an4 bo liable.forits pro rata part of thq outstandingflnanolalobl&pHilossof t&o oonsoli&sted

dietriot, so* pro rata pert to be:.?maed oa the relation the total assessed**valuation** of all~property in the dlstrlofbears to fhs total assssss4valuationof property in the oonsolldatsd dlstrlot,as shown by the aesessmentrolls or the dlstrlot for the ourrantyr. No eleotlon for the dissolution OS said oonsolldata4 dlstrlots shall be held until three ysars have alapssd after the date of the eleoflonat which suoh dlstrlots were oonsolldated.* without quotw same, we note aleo Artlole 874Zb, 8eC. 6a, contains ths same ess%ntlal elements materialhero as Art1010 e806, except that it more speclfloally provides for esparatspetitions + and requires the action of the County Board of Trustees in sach aounty. Manifestly, the petitlone set out above 4r4 lnsuf~lclent to ootaply

with our stetutes oii ooneoli6atlon

of dlstrlotsand dissolution of consolidated districts. Articlqs &SO6 and %Pab, Ssc. Sa clearly contemplate the oonsolidatlon or tw6 or more *school dletricttP ae contracted to the d%taohment of a part **Of** aHOE. T. t'.?rirr.ble, April 13, 1939, Page 4

district aild

attachment to another. Article 2815 clearly ccntelcplate. that wheo a consolidated district is dissolved the original **districts** shall return to their original status. IS this is to be a disaolution **and** the districts returned to their original status, by what theory would the Colman County part of the dissolved consolidated district vote GUI the question of whether the iiunnels County part and the Crews Comon School histrict in Xunnels County should oonsolidate? In like manner, how viouldthe Runnels County portion after dissolution of the consolidated district join in a petition to call an eleotion on the question of whether that part of the old Content Consolidated District beiog in Coleman County should consolidate -with

Novice in Coleman County? That is a question purely between the consolidating distriots.

**We do**  not think the patitltm IS rriflolsntto oall au elaotion to dlsrolveCo&ant Conrolldated Distrist **under** Artlola 8815. In the riret plaoe It doe8 not purport to **be** au llsatlon to dls- ~olvs the oon8olIdetad distriotbut one to deteoh It8 territory, (It not appearingrrom the facts $lvan whether this 4lvI~Ionhollows old district llnnse or not;) end then oonrolldetethose dateohed portion8with other dlstrlota. But If It shouldbe eontendedthat a 4188olutlonI8 nsoeasarilyoonsentadt0~i.n toting to oonsolidete Its parts with other diatrlots,we eel1 attantlonto tha saae of Consolidated

Oo@mon SohoolDlstrlot Wo. 5 v. Wood, (T 0 **A** 19957, Writ dIsmIssed),1lS 8. **W.** (9) 851, whardn It we8 held that In order to oomplywith that part of Article 7~3.5 whloh provldee that dlwolutlon may be effected In the same manner a8 oonaolIdetIon, one or mora petltlons,elmed by ZOTamty of the~le(pally quallrlsd

voters ol aaoh of the rormerlye%ImtIngdlatrlots must bel eaurad and a petmn from the dlstristasa'wh~le 2.8 ln8Pitl- .oient. **Aooording** to this oaaa, a pajorlty iota o? the aon8olIdatad dImtrIota8 a whole would not be aurilolentto dIs8oltebut there must be e majorityvute in saoh of the old dlrrtrlsta.

We next oome to the questionof whether the petition oomplieswith Art&ale S745f providingfor transferof territory. klthoutpasring upon the questlon ot whether 97481 applies to oonsolidated districts lying In two or more oountiea, we examine the provisions or this statute.

Artlole S745f, Aote 1986, 44th Leg., p:TQO, Ch. 559, % 2, prorides:

The petition shallgive the mete8 and bounds of the proposeddistrict an'd be signedby a~mjorlty of .the

,. qualiried voters residing In eaoh territory to be dataohsd;"Hon. 1~. L. ?rimblei April 13, 193Q, Z)ape5

The plain vjordixq? of this statute is that the petition is to be signed, not by a majority cl’the voters from the whole district but by.a majority “in each territory to be detaohed.r

Article 2742f further provides:

n that before any portion of any districthas any pa&‘tiereof detached au eleotlon shall be held at which the qualifiedtaxpayingvoters of such diatrlct eoupht to be divided shall first vote by a majority vote to alvlde said distrlot and shall define the part of said originaldletriot sought to be deteohed;

. . .v Y'hs queatlonto be voted upon Is not whether a part of a dletrlot shall bo oonrolld.dbted with another but whather the dlatrlot ahall be qivlded**end** territorydeteohed. **Arter** the voter8 glre their oonsant to the dl~l8lou,the CountyBoefl or Trwtees detaohes th? territoryand etteohecl to another dlatrlot,oreatluga new dl&trlotwhich we **do** not thluk we8 lnteuded~to be a~woou8011datod dlatrlot*as that term 1s **used** la Our statutes. **Xradditlon** to this, before the newly oreateddlatrlot la a Yallh dirtriot,the LeglUhtuI?e.mUSt

IVktlfy the eotlon of the CoMty Board a8 provided lu the statute.

An addltlonaiprovlslonOS Artlole Pi4Sr 18: R

. . . and provided further t&t the dlatrlot to whloh suoh territory**is** desired **to** be **added** aheii have au eleotlon at rhloh the qualliledtaxpayingvotera of mob orlgllml dlatrlot to whloh moh terrltmy Is sought to be added ehall~vote**by** a majority vote **to** assuue-that pMusrtloa&e f the Qistrlot rrom ~&ion Nob the detaohed territory**beam** to the orlginel~

dlatrlot from which deteohed,and at.aeld eleotlononly those quallfledtaxpayiugvoters lnslde the territoryof the newly formed distrlot tvhall.vbte.w The only pus&Ion voted on In this phase of the statute Is whether the lndobtednesala to be assumed and not whather the territoryshall be added. **We**note that the quest&m preaentqd In the Crsws Consolidated Distriotpetition Ia whether it @hail be oonaolidated

with a portion of the Content'DistrIdt and not whether lt,wIllesmme a proportionate part of the indebteduese. The wording of this petltlon lndloa~bsthat the dlstrlotswere attempting to oomplywith Artlole SSO6 or ArtJole ST&b, Seo. 5, but aa pointed.out

above, this it.'&8 noe'dolia. Undoubtedlythese petition8wouid not satietythe provision8 0f~Artlole**ti74ar.**Hon. T. K. 'I'rfmble, April 13, 1939, rage 0

The view we take of these petitions renders the question of whether the propositions can be submitted in one petition wholly academlo. We are of the opinion that the fern: of the petitions submitted is insuffiolent to call an election for the purpose of dividing or dissolving Content County-Line Consolidated District No. 3 or to consolidate or attach ite parts to other school districts.
Yours very truly ATTORI4ZYGENERALOF?EXAS

: :

.