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. 

On July 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School Board rescinded Its action of July 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 may be 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) 

mlnlstrative purposes, the authority to consolidate 

its entirety the dormant county-line dlstrlct. 

in 

Accordingly, it Is our opinion that the action 

taken by the County School Board of Donley County on 

July 6, 1949, by virtue of the provisions of Article 

VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature,consolidating dormant 

dcmmon school districts, Whitefish and Glenwood, located entirely In Donley County, with the adjoining McLean 

Independent School District, located entirely in Gray 

count 

iv 

is valid, 

Gray ounty consen e s or approves thereto. Such orders 

rovided the County School Board of 

of approval should designate which county board shall 

have jurisdiction of the newly created county-line dlstrict for school purposes. 

SUMMARY 

A dormant school district under Article VIII, S.B. 116, 51st Legislature, located entirely in one county or that portion of 

a dormant county-line @strict located in a 

certain county, may be consolidated with an 

adjoining active school district or Districts 

located in another county, where the county 

school boards of the counties to be affected thereby consent and approve to such consolidation. 

If an order passed by a county school 

board.acting under Article VIII, S.B. 116, 

consolidating a dormant school district 

with an adjoining district or districts in 

another county 1s valid, an attempted rescission of that order by a subsequent 

board order purporting to consolidate that 

s%me district with another district Is invalid, because it In no way complies with 

the laws relating to detaching from one di%- 

trict and attaching to another. Kermit I.S. 

D. Ho. 5 v. State, 208 S.W.2d 717; Weinert 

. . . v. ENS, 52 s.w.28 370. 

Yours very truly, 

8 

AppRz?Y&L.& 

FIRST ASSISTAKT 

AITITORREYGERBRAL 

CEO: bh:m 

ATTORN??XGEBERALOFTEXAS 

By-LzLzzLroChester E. Ollison 

Assistant