Bon. Alwln E. Pape

County Attorney Guadalupe County Seguln; Texaa

Dear

thla Sir: AUSTIN~.TEXAS .-.-sl-We.,_ . .. ^I.~.. _..___.__

August 29, 1952 .u...._.*-_^____’

Opinion No. 

## v-1518

Re: Procedure to dlaaolve a consolidated county-line district ‘created in the
manner tiole 2irescrlbed by Ar06,’ V.C.S.

Werefer to your request for an opinion from office’ relative to the following aubmltted matter:
OnMarch 2, 1940, the Clbolo,Common School Dlatriot No. 29, then wholly within Ouadalupe County, and the Schertz Common County-Line School District NO. 36, then situated part In Ouadalupe landpart in Bexar Counties, were properly consolidated In the manner preacrlbed by Article 2806, V.C.S. to form the Schertz-Clbolo Common County-Line Consolidated School District No. 29, comprising territory part in Quadalupe and part ‘In Bexar Counties. This Schertz-Cibolo district has been opera’ted
aa a oonso,lldated county-line dlatrlot. since its creation. A public’ free. school since that time and in 1951-1952 haa been maintained in the dlatrlct and’Its operation la contemplated for the 1952-1953 school term.
OnJuly 9, 1952, a petition waa filed with the County Judge of Ouadalupe County. It reada In part aa followa:

?We the underslgned residents and qualifled.votera of the Schertz-Clbolo CommonCounty-Line Consolidated School Dla’- trlct No. 29, altuated In Ouadalupe and Bexar Counties, Texaa;do hereby respeotfully request that you, In connection with the County Judge of Bexar County, Texas, call an’electlon to be ‘held by the quallfled voters ‘of the Sohertz-Clbolo CommonHon. Alwln E. Pape, page 2 

## (v-1518)

County-LineConsolidated School District No. 29 for the 'purposeof determining whether said consolidated school district shall be dissolved,as authorizedby Article 2815 of Vernon's Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, and such supporting statutes
as contained in Title 49, entitledEducation, and that in connectionwith the County Judge of Bexar County, Texas,'give statutorynotice of such election."

'Thereonappear names of sixty-one (61)’ residents and qualified voters of the Clbolo vicinity,butt

none from the Schertz section of the consolidated school district. No such petitionhas been filedwith the County Judge.ofBexar County, but .odemay! be, containing the same 61 names. No 'likepetition has been filed by the voters of the &hertz vicinity,nor have they~joined In any peti-: tlon already filed or to be filed.
Questions: 1. Is there any statutewhich provides for the dissolution of a county-line consolidated school districtwhere 'thedistrict operates 'apublic sbhool therein?

2. Under the facts submittedand on the quoted petition presented to the County Judge of GuadalupeCounty, can this consolldated county-linedistrict be dissolved, and the former Clbolo and Schertz districtsrevert to their original status?

With reference to your first question, there are only two statuteswhich provide for the dissolution of consolidated school districts.

Article 2815-1,Vernon'sCivil Statutes, enacted in 1947, provides in part as follows:

"Section 1. Any county line school district formed by the consolidationof two
or more school districts situated 'intwo or more counties after the'~effective date of this Act may be dissolvedby the~~procedure hereinafter established,whenever-the 'consolidated school district-falls‘to~'operate

a public free school." (Emphariri?~rl:addep., 'I, '. _'Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 3 (V-1518)

This statute could have no application in the dissolution of the Clbolo-Sohertzconsolidated countyline district, under the facts submitted, for the right to dissolve granted In that law is limited to countyline consolidateddistricts that "fail to operate a public free school."

The other statute providing for the dissolution of consolidatedschool districts IsArticle 2815,V.C.S. It reads In part as follows: ;

"(a) Such consolidateddistrictsmay, In the same manner provided for their consolidation,be dissolved and the districts included therein restored to their original status, except that it shall not be necessary to providepolling places In each dlstrict. No election forthe dissolution of sa;d'consolldateddistricts shall be held until three (3)years have elapsed after the date of the election at which such dlstrictswere consolidated."

An examination of the legislativehistory concerningArticles 2815 and 2806,V.C.S. Is necessary here to determine the meaning and scope of the phrase, ,'such consolidateddistricts.

Since 1909,when Section 3 of ArticleVII of the Constitution of Texas, was amended, the Legislature has been expressly authorized to provide, by general law, for the creation of school districts including territory In more than one county. Simpson v. Pontotoc Common~County Line School District No. 31, 275 S.W. 4@ (Tex.Civ. App.

-error. West, 102 Tex. 11, 111 S.W. 726 (1908).

Article 2815 has Its orlgin~inHouse Bill 121, Acts 38th Leg., 3rd C.S. 1923, ch. 13, p. 169. House Bill 121was an amendatory law providing for the consolidation of school districts and their dissolution. It recites unchanged Section 1 of House Bill 148, Acts 36th m3., 2nd C.S. 1919, ch. 65, p. 167,mthe first law authorizing the creation of consolldated'schooldistricts, and then adds a new paragraphproviding for their dissolution.

Section 1 of House Bill 148, supra, as amended by House Bill 121 in 1923 reads In part as follows:Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 4 (v-1518)

"Section-l. When any number of contiguous common school districtswithin this State, deslrlng~

to consolidate for school purposes, present a petition to the judge of the countywherein such districts are situated, signedby twenty or a majority of the legally qualified voters of each dlstrlct so desiring to consolidate, the county judge shall Issue an order for an election to be held in each of~the common school dlstricts so petitioning,which election shall be held on the same date. The county judge shall give notloe of the date of such elections by publication of the order In some newspaper published in the county, for twenty days prior to the date on which such elections are ordered, or by posting a notice of.such elections in each of the districts, or by both such publication and posted notices. The Commissioners'Court of the county inwhich such e~lectlons are held shall at Its next meeting canvass the returns of such elections, and if the votes cast in each and all districts show a majority In favor of the consolidationof such common school districts, the commlssloners'court shall declare such common districts consolidated, and districtsbeing oontlguous territory.

"It Is herein provided that in the same manner as is described in Section 1, common school districtsmay be consolidatedwith contiguous independent sohool~distrlc:ts,~.

. .

"It Is herein furtherprovided that in the same manner as is dea,cribed in Section 1, such consolidated school districtsmay be dissolved and the distri6ts Included~therein restored to their original status, except that it shall not be necessary to provide for pollingplaces in each of the districts composing such consolidateddistricts;

. e

. provided further that no election, as provided for in this section, for the dlssolution of said consolidateddistricts' shall be held until three years have elapsed afterHon. Alwin E. Pape, page 5 (V-1518)

the date of the election at which such districtswere consolidated."
Clearly the dissolutionprovisions in House Bill 121, supra,authorisedany consolidated school districts created in the manner prescribed in Section 1 of that law to dissolve in the same manner as created under that law. No provision in that law can be found which would preclude the consolidationof contiguous school districtswhich were situated in adjoining counties. It Is addressed to 'anynumber of contiguous

. . D school districtswithin this State."

In 1925, the consolidationand dissolution provisions of House Bill 121were separated and codified into our Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, under Articles 2806 and 2815,'to read as follows:

"Article 2806. Election to consolldateOn the petition of twenty or a majority of the legallyqualified voters of each of several contiguous common school districtspraylng~for the consolidationof such districts' for school purposes, the county judge shall Issue an order for an election to be held on the same day in each such district. The county judge shall give notice of the date of~suchelectionsby publication of the order in some newspaperpublished in the county for twenty days prior to the date on which such elections are ordered, or by posting a notice of such elections in each of the districts,

or by both such publicationand posted notices. The commissionerscourt shall at its next meeting canvass the returns of such election, and ifsthe votes cast in each and all districts show a majority in favor of such consolidation, the court shall declare such
.commonschool districts consolidated. Common school districtsmay In likemanner be consolidatedwith contl#uous independent school districts,

. . . "Article 2815. Dissolution. - Such consolidateddistrictsmay in the same manner provided for their consolidation,be dissolved and the districts included therein restored to theiroriginal status, exeept that it shall not be necessary to provideHon. Alwin E. Pape, page 6 (V-1518)

polling places in each district.

. o

. No election for the dissolution of said consolidated districts shall be held until three years have elapsed after the date of the election at which such districtswere consolidated."

Thus, it is made apparent that the words "such consolidated districts"appearing in Article 2815 mean any consolidateddistrict created in the manner prescribed in Article 2806. Under Article 2815, such consolidated districtsmay be dissolved in the same manner and undeli the same procedurewhich authorized their creation, set out in Article 2806, except that in the dissolution thereof "it shall not be necessary to provide pollingplaces in each district."

Furthermore.Article 2815 remains unchanned. but Article 2806 has been 42nd Leg., R.S. 1931, ch. 828, Acts 49th Leg,,R.S. 1931 amendment of Article provision:
,I

. . Dprovided

. amended in House Bill 98, Acts

106, p. 182, and House Bill 1945, ch. 264, p. 416. In the 2806, therewas inserted this

further, thatwhen it

._ . 1s proposea to consollaate contiguous countyline districts, the petitions and election orders prescribed in this Act, shall be addressed to and issued by the Co~unty Judge of the countyhaving jurisdictionover the principal school of each district and the results of the election shall be canvassed and declared by the Commissioners'Court of said county.'

The tenor of this amendment is indicative that the authority to consolidatecontiguous county-linedistricts already existed under those other provisions of Article 2806 which authorize the consolidationof any number of contiguo~us common or independentdistricts. Its language is not such as reflects grant of power for the first time. The amendatoryprovision appears to be added merely to clarify the procedure to be followed in the consolidationof any common or independentdistrictswhich are co,unty-line districts.

The 1945 amendment of Article 2806 inserted this provision: -Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 7 (v-1518)

It

e D

. Provided that if any such distrlctor districts are situated *holly in

a county other than the county norcounties embracing any other such district or dlstricts the petitions and election orders prescribed in thisAct shall be addressed to and issued by the respectiveCounty Judges of the respective counties inwhich such districtsrespectively lie, each County Judge ordering the election for the district or districts in his county, and the CommissionersCourts of such respective counties .shallcanvass the returns and declare the results of the election in the district or dlstri~cts of their respective counties.

. . ."

This added amendatorymatter more clearly constitutes simply another legislative enactmentdesigned to clarify the procedure to be folIowed in consolidations of any contiguous common or independent school districtspreviously authorized in the manner prescribed inArticle 2806.

But if there be any doubt as to the authority of~contiguousdistrictswholly within adjoining counties of county-linedistricts to consolidate in the,manner prescribedunder Article 2806, the uncertainty is resolved in an enactment of 1927, Section 5b of House' Bill 99, Acts 40th Leg., 1st C.S. 1927, ch. 84, pm 228, codified as Section 5b, Article 2742b, InVernon Civil Statutes. Section 5b reads in part as follows:

'In themanner prescribedby 0

. .Article 2806

. . .providing for the consolidation of school districts by election,Common School and Common County-line School Districts may be consolidated,and Common School and Common County-line School Districts may be consolidated with a contiguous IndependentDistrict in the same or in an adjoining County; provided thatwhen the proposition is to consolldate districtshaving territory in two or more adjoining Counties, the petitions and election orders prescribed in Article 2806 shall be addressed to and Issuedby the County Judge of each County for and/in behalf of each districtwholly in his County
or overwhich his County has jurisdiction for administrativepurposes, and the CountyHon. Alwln E. Pape, page 8 (v-1518)

Commissioners'Court of each County shall

canvass the returns of the eleotion in each district lyingwholly within the County or under its jurisdictionfor administrative purposes, and declare the results, as In the' case of the consolidationoft districts lying tiholly'within one County; and when the results are a? declared the consolidation of the districts shall thereby become effective."

Section 5b, supra, like the amendments of 1931 and 1945 to Article 2806 herein discussed,we believe may properly be regarded as legislativeclarificationof procedure to be,

had in the consolidationof certain kinds of school districts,whose authority to consolidatewas earlier provided for-in Article 2806. Section 13 of House Bill 99, supra, did not repeal Article 2806, nor Is Section 5b of Article 2742b in conflict therewith.

In the light of the legislativehistory concerningArticles,2806 and 2815, as herein considered, it is our opinion that Article 2815, par. (a),V.C.S., authorizes the abolition of any consolidatedschool dlstrict created by election in the manner prescribedby Article 2806. Further,with respect to your first question, the Schertz-CiboloCommon County-LineConsolidated School DistrictNo. 29, created by the consolidationof

a common districtwholly within one countywith a contiguous county-linedistrict in the manner prescribed in Article 2806, it may be' dissolvedby an election~in the manner prescribed in Article 2815, par. (a),V.C.S.

It is clear, of course, thatwe disagreewith

an overruleherein the statementmade In Attorney General Opinion O-5758 (1944) that Article 2815 is applicable only to consolidateddistricts lyingwholly within one county.

We considernow your second question. Under the facts submittedyou state that the said Schertz-Cibolo consolidateddistrictwas created in the manner prescribed by Article 2806,V.C.S. Therefore,we assume that in 1940, a petition for the consolidationbearing the names of twenty or a majority of the qualified voters of the former Cibolo Common Districtwas addressed to the County Judge of Guadalupe County and that a like'petitionbearing the names of twenty or a majority of the'quallfied voters of the former Schertz Common County-line SchoolHon. Alwin E. Pape, page 9 (v-1518)

District was addressed to the County Judge of Bexar County or GuadalupeCounty,whichever county had jurisdiction of that county-linedistrict. Woodson Ipdependent School Dist. v. State, 130 S.W.2d 1038 (Tex.Civ. A 141cb 6~~'(Tex.'C~rvf"~p~e f I'H i940 ?:r% Trlmble, 145S.W.2d onaldsonv. State, 161 S.W.2d 324 (T;x.Civ. error ref. w.O.m.). Compliancewith Article require that one or more petitons, signedby twenty or a majority of the legally qualifiedvoters of each of the formerly existing districtsbe filedwlmhe proper county judge or judges.

The provision in Article 2815 is that such consolidateddistrictsmay 'in the same manner provided for their consolidation"be.dissolved. In Consolidated Common School Dist. No..5 v. Wood ,112S.W,2d 231 235, (Tex.Civ. App. 1937, error dism.j, the court conitrues the quoted phrase as follows:

The power to dissolve the consolidaied district and thereby re-establish the formerly existing component districts is thus delegatedupon the condition that it be done,in the same manner provided for their consolidation. In other words, the Legislature in prescribing the several essential steps by which such delegated power should fully vest did 80 by reference to the procedure by which the consolidationwas effected. It is not permissible,we think, to substituteany other,unless some other is expressly authorized, or excepted from the 'requirement

that it be in the same man- ner as provided for consolidation."0
- such exception is made, which Is thatnYit shall not be necessary to provideppllirg plSaes inea.h"distribti'

Thatwas a wholly unnecessary exception;unless it was deemed by the lawmakers that by proceeding to a dissolution 'inthe same manner'would require as many differentpolling places as was required in the elections for c~onsolldation. Therefore, if therewas any doubt or uncertainty -as-,tow:hat was meant by the 'same
manner provided for their consolidation,' the exceptionwould seem to remove such doubt and make clear the meaning. It seem to us the general provisionread In connec-Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 10 (v-1518)

tion with the single exception compels the conclusion that the ssamemanner'would require one or more petitions, signed by twenty or a majority of the legally qua1i.r~:~ fied'voters of each of the formerly existing districts; that the electionbe held at the several polling places in each of said districts or (underauthority of the express exheption) at one polling place, but just as was provided in Article 2807, with reference to the two kinds of electionsheld at the
same place, that separateballot boxes and tally sheets, etc. be provided and that the result or results of the several elections be separately ascertained and declared. The last-namedprovision shows 'thatthe Legislaturedid not regard election and polling places as synonymous.

"There Is another considerationwhich
seems to us to favor such interpretationof the phrase 'Inthe same'mannerprovided for their consolidation.' The steps prescribed for consolidationquite clearlymanifest the policy that no such consolidation shall be affected contrary to the will (expressedin the elections) of any one of the districts. Of any number of districts involved in a proposed consolidation the unanimouswill of all, ascertainedby elections separately held, is required. But if the construction of these statutes contended for by the plaintiffs be correct, then a contrary policy is manifest in the provisions of the dissolution of consolidateddistricts. Under that construction itwould be possible to dissolve

a consolidateddistrictby the will of the voters in the territory of a single district which went into the consolidation,although contrary to the will, if separately expressed, of all the other districts inv.olved In the consolidation. We can perceiveno reason why one policy should prevail in consolidations and a contrary policy in dissolutions."

In the instantmatter, the petition for a dissolution election filedwith the County Judge of Guadalupe County on July 9, 1952, contains the names, you state, of legally qualifiedvoters residing only in theHon. Alwin E. Pape, page 11 (v-1518)

Cibolo area of the consolidateddistrict. Since the former Cibolo districtwas wholly located in Guadalupe County and under the jurisdictionof that county, the petition, insofar-as qualifiedvoters of the Cibolo
area is concerned,appears to be in compliancewith the requirements of Article 2815 and 2806. But it is insufficientand could not be acted 'upon by the County Judge of Bexar County or the County Judge of Guadalupe County for the Schertz area of consolidateddistrict (if the former Schertz county-linearea was under the jurisdictionof the Guadalupe County) because it does not contain the names of twenty or a majority ofthe 1, qualified voters residing now in the Schertz area. Popnoev. Corbin, 215 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Civ. App. 1948).

Accordingly, it is our opinion that under the laws stated and the facts submitted, a properielection for the dissolution of the Schertz-CiboloCommon County Line Consolidated School District No. 29 may not be had based alone on the petitionherein considered.

SUMMARY

Under Article 2815, par. (a),V.C.S., the Schertz-CiboloCommon County Line Consolidated School District No. 29 may be dissolved by an electionheld in the same manner itwas consolidated,as prescribed in the provisions of Article 2806,V.C.S., except that it is not necessary to provide polling places in each former district consolidated.

Such Schertz-Cibolocounty-linedistrict could not properlybe dissolved in an election called and based alone on the petltion, dated July 9, 1952, it not containing the names of twentv or a ma.-lorits of the legally qualified ioters from each of the districts consolidated. ConsolidatedComm;n School Dist:.

No. 5 v. Wood, 112 S.W. 2 231 (Tex.civ. App. 1937, error dism.)

APPROVED:

J. C. Davis, Jr. County Affairs Division

E. Jacobson Reviewing Assistant Charles D. Mathews First Assistant Yours very truly,

PRICE DANIEL Attorney General

By Chester E. Ollison

Assistant