Hon. C. H. Cavness

State Auditor Austin, Texas

Dear Sir: Augurst 8; 1949

Oplnlon ao. v-877
Rer Authority of County School Board to rescind
an order consolidating a dormant school diatrlct, Article VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature.
We refer to your recent opinion request concerning the following question and submitted fact sltuat Ion.
The Donley County School Board on July 6, 1949, acting under Article VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature, by order consolidated two dormant districts, Whlteflsh C.S.D. and Glenwood C.S.D., both of which districts are located entirely in DonIey County, with the McLean Independent School District located entirely in Gray County. Thls action was taken in line with a petltion from the patrons of the named dormant districts asklng for such consolidation.
OnJuly 11, 1949, this Donleg County School Board rescinded Its action of July 6, and consolidated said dlstrlots, Whltefish and Glenwood, to the Alanreed Independent School District of Gray County. Question: "Since the dormant dlstricts in question are located In Donley County and the Independent districts in question are located In Gray County, a&¶ since the consolidation on July 6 was less than 30 days from the effective date of S.B. 116, while the consolidation of July 11 was more than 30 days after the effective date of S.B. 116, I should like your opinion regarding the authority of the Donleg County School Board to take the action. ._

Hon. C. B. Cavness, pap

above outlined.” 2 (v-877)

In our opinion, decisive of the matter before
us Is the determination of whether or not the order made by the Donley County School Board of July 6, 1949, was a valid and effective order. If valid, It legally qonsolidated the Whitefish and Glenwood dormant distrlcts of Donley County with an adjoining district, McDean, located in Gray County, and thereby created a new county-line school district; and the attempted resclssion by the order on July 11, 1949, was invalid because It no way complied with the law (Section 2 of Article 2742e and Section 1 of Article 27421) relating to detaching land from one Independent district and attaching it to another independent district. County School Trustees of Runnels County v. State, 95 S.W.2d 1001 (Tex.

The fact that one order was made on July 6, that is, within the 30-day provision of.Article VIII, S.B. 116, and the subsequent order was made on July 11, which was after the 30-day period of the Act, is lrrelevant In this matter. Tbls office in Its opinion Ro. V-855 has held that the 30-day period in S.B. 116 is directory rather than mandatory in nature, and that consolidations under Article VIII maybe expected after as well as within the JO-day period following the effective date of S.B. 116.

The application of Article VIII is restricted. It expressly prescribes that *the provisions herein for the consolidation of school districts by order of the County Board of Trustees shall be applicable only In the circumstances herein enumerated.” The first paragraph of Article VIII requires consolidation of each dormant school district within the county with an adjoining dlstrict or districts. It deals with a dormant aistrlct located entirely within one county. The second paragraph requires consolidation of each dormant couutyline district. It provides that “the several counties affected” (by this provision requiring the conSolidation of a dormant county-line district) shall “to the extent the territory in each respective county* apply the provisions of this Act. It deals with a dormant :’ district whose boundaries include territory lying in two or more counties.Hon. C. H. Cavness, Page 3 (V-877)

With respect to consolidation of a dormant dlstrict located wholly within one county, Article VIII requires that the Board of that county shall consolidate
same “with an adjoining district or districts.” Trikewise, since the second paragraph refers to the provisions of the first, it follows that Boards of those counties affected in the consolidation of a dormant county-llne dlstriat are required thereunder by their several action to consolidate dormant areas “to the extent of the territory in eaoh respective county” with
an adjoining district or districts. V-876. A. 0. Opinion

It will be observed that no provision In Article VIII requires that a dormat district located wholly within one county or territory of a dormant county-line district within a county shall consolidate

“with an adjoining district or districts” within the county wherein It is located. Therefore, we think that Article m may not be cons&u%d as prohfbitfng consolidation of such dormant districts or territory with
an adjolniag district or districts across a county line.

It ~3.11 be observed further, however, that the Legislature in providing for the consolidation of county-line districts, as above discussed, limited the jurisdiction of the Boards of the counties affected to consolidate only *to the extent of the territory” in Its county. This constitutes, in our opinion, an intention on the part of the Legislature to preserve jurisdiction to each county school board the power to determlne consolidation matters affecting the school districts within its jurisdiction. We do not believe that ArtLole VIII was intended to force one county school board to accept against Its will or without its approval consolldations under Article VIII made by an adjoining county school board. Its primary purpose, as we see It, is to require that dormant districts, dormant territory, and territory not now a part of any school district, shall be consolidated with an active adjoining district or districts, be it In County A or an adjoining County B. It should not be construed in a manner which may result in friction and disputes between county school boards, and in the creation 

### of jurisdictional conflicts.

A%pointed out in Opinion Bo. V-876 concerning dormant county-line districts, the Legislatme in A%tlcle VIII did not give the county board which now has jurlsdlctlon of the county-line diatrlct for ad-

### Hon. C. Ii, Cavness,page 4 (V-877)



### mlnlstrativepurposes,the authorityto consolidate its entiretythe dormantcounty-line dlstrlct. in



### Accordingly,it Is our opinionthat the action takenby the CountySchoolBoard of DonleyCounty on July 6, 

### 1949,by virtueof the provisionsofArticle VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature,consolidating dormant dcmmon 

### schooldistricts, Whitefishand Glenwood,located entirelyIn DonleyCounty,with the adjoiningMcLean IndependentSchoolDistrict,locatedentirelyin Gray count iv is valid, Gray ounty consens or approvesthereto. Such orders

e rovidedthe CountySchoolBoard of
of approvalshoulddesignatewhich countyboard shall have jurisdiction

of the newly createdcounty-linedlstrict for schoolpurposes.

SUMMARY

A dormantschooldistrict 

### underArticleVIII, S.B. 116, 51stLegislature,located entirelyin one countyor that portionof
a dormantcounty-line @strict locatedin a certaincounty,may be consolidated with an adjoiningactive schooldistrictor Districts locatedin anothercounty,where the county schoolboards of the countiesto be affected therebyconsentand approveto such consolidation.

If an order 

### passedby a countyschool board.acting

underArticleVIII, S.B. 116, consolidating

a dormantschooldistrict with an adjoiningdistrictor districtsin anothercounty1s valid,an attemptedrescissionof that orderby a subsequent board orderpurportingto consolidatethat s%me districtwith anotherdistrictIs invalid,because it 

### In no way complieswith the lawsrelatingto detachingfrom onedi%- trictand attachingto another. Kermit I.S. D. Ho. 5 

### v. State, 208 S.W.2d 717;Weinert

. . . v. ENS, 52 

### s.w.28370.
Yours very truly,

8 AppRz?Y&L.& 

### FIRSTASSISTAKT AITITORREYGERBRAL CEO: bh:m ATTORN??XGEBERALOFTEXAS



### By-LzLzzLroChesterE. Ollison

Assistant