December 12, 1947

Hon. L. A. Woods, State Superintendent State Department of Education Austin, Texas OpinionNo. V-452.
Re: Jurisdiction of the State Superintendent of an appeal from the decision of a countyboard transferringa portion of one school district to another.
Dear Sir:

Your letter and statementattached reflect that upon a petition signedby a majority of the qualified voters in the area detached, the County Board of School Trustees of Colorado County enteredan order transferringa portion of the ConsolidatedEagle Lake Independent School District to the Columbus Independent School District. The territory transferredwas less than 10% of the Eagle Lake District. The Eagle Lake District, being dissatisfiedwith the action of the County Board, has appealed to you, the State Superintendent. The ColumbusDistrict and the County Board have filed with you a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that you have no jurisdictionto hear the case. You have asked us to adviseyou whether you have such jurisdiction.

In 1920, the Texas Supreme Court, acting through its Commission of Appeals, decided the case of Jenninps L. Carson, 220 S.W. 1090. There, in a dispute over a schooldistrict boundary line similar to the present one, appeal was taken directly from the county board to the District Courtunder the statutewhich provided that the District Court shall have general supervisory control of the actions of the county board in creatin8' changing,and modifying school districts. (Now Art. 26 2).Hon.'L. A. Woods, Page 2, V-452.

Notwithstandingthat statute, it was held that appeal must be taken first to the State Superintendent, ~TheCourtheld that the above statutewas applicable after appeal had been made within the school system itself, The decisionwas based upon what is now Article 2656, which provides in part:

"The State Superintendentshall be charged with the administrationof the school laws and the general superintendency of the businessrelating to the public schools of the State O He shall hear and determineall appeal: from the rulings and decisions of subordinate school ~officers,s O O 011 (Emphasisadded) '.
‘, Yith reference to the above statute the Court said:

., "The county trustees O o Obeing subordinate school officers, the language of the article quoted is all-inclusiveas to the appeals from their decisions that shall be heard by the State Superintendentof Public Instruction. No exceptionis provided."

State Under this holding of our Supreme Court, the Su erintendent duty to K clearly has the authority and the

ear such appeal.
In 1932 the Supreme Court, acting through its Commission of Appeals,handed down its decision in State Line Consolidated School Districtv. Farwell, 48 S.7 T2dJ 616 which made an exception to -rule of the Jennings'case,above cited. The exception there stated was that an appealmight be taken directly from the county board to the District Court where the school board acted without authority of law, contrary to an express statute, and in such a manner that its actswere absolutely void.

But that case did not decide that if an appeal had been taken to the State Superintendent,he would not have had jurisdictionto hear the case. The Courtmerely held that such step in the appellateprocedurecould be omitted, The Jennings case,above discussed,has never been overruled-and but for the exceptionmade in the Faru case, it is still the law. - . .Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 3, V-452.

The Jennine case is followed in Countv TrusBell Point Common School District, 229 S. rwell case is followed in Board of School Bullock Common School District 55 S. W (2d) 538 ana in County School Trustees of C 1 a lahan & Y. District Trustees, etc., 192 S.W. (2d) 891.

In the case presentedto you, the complete facts of which are not availableto us, if itwas shown that the acts of the County Boardwere contraryto law and absolutelyvoid, appealmight have been taken directly to the.DistrictCourtunder the Farwell case. That, however,was not done, Such beinmase, you are respectfullyadvised that you have the power and duty to hear the appeal in t,hiscaseunder Article 2656 and the Jennings case.

SUMMARY

The State Superintendentof Public Instructionhas jurisdictionto review the action of a County Board of School Trustees changinga boundary line between two independent schooldistricts,notwithstandingthe provisions of Art. 2682. Art. 2656, Jennin s v. Carson (Comm.App., 19201, 220 S.W. E;te;L;ne f.W

S.,ij zi6Farwell (Comm.--id2) 8S App.,

. . Yours very truly,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

ATTORNEY GENERAL

:JRG:erc Joe R. Greenhill Executive Assistant
By arow Chester Ollison Assistant