### EATTORNEY GENERAL, QFTEXAS AUSTIN~~.Tmcx~s PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY

GENERAI. August 12, 

### 1948

Hon. Preston E. Hutchinson, Accountant Joint Le islative Conuittee Austin, 4

### exam Opinion 

### Ho, V-659 Appllicability of

’ 

### 435 iimitation in ~Artlole

5 spal?sely settled ing”,m~“nt sehoel dir4

Werefer to your request Pop an 0pinlOn OOacernlng the applicability of the 

### $35 POPSohoZrStitI limitation 

### on equalization aid to independent school dic+W&ts, e~lgi~le and applying fop aid, under the third paragraph of Section 1, Art. I, H. B0 295, 5Qth Legislature. Wequote frol youp opiai*e FOqWt, Fo pm-t, a8 follows:

“The first part of this paragraph qualifies school district lirlts aid to thirty-five dollars per scholaatlc6 The ssoond part of tha,paregraph quaefbfies indspeadent sohoai c%$UatriotaODabout $h& samebaels but does not speclfioally r)by that such dlst 8 five dollape ( are limited to thirtypop 8chola8tic, Since the budgetary need, requirements end qualifications of the above nameddlstrlote are the same, we feel that It is necessary to ask the following question:

‘lAFe independent districts, qualifying under this special provisl n, llmlted to thirty-five dollaF6 

### ($3S? par 8oho2artio?s

‘If the 

### above queetioa ie.ansvorsd in the negative, the eeoond quostlon would bsiBon. Preston E, Hutchinson, page 2 (V-659)

“P&e independent 

### schooldistrio 8, with less than one hundred and fifty 150) scholastics, as described in Aptlcle 27 3, limfted to the thirty-five dollar6 ($35P per soholastlo%B

“Attaohed is an example of some ten or iiitoen distrlotk qualifying under this spe%lal F ovi61ene Please note 

### onpage 1, itemas hat said district is on y apply1 i T for thirty-five 

### dollam ($35 

### descpibodin Article 1, par scho a8tlC as ectlom lp As yeu will nete en page 5, with the llmitatien ra* r~vol, eald Qlstriotqs salary aid grant VllL be ralsrd from twe t and eeventy dollars usan oighht hundred 2870) to eight thousand eighthundred and seven

### dollars ($8807)~ II’



### The third pmagva r of Section 1, of 

### AFtiole I, Ii, B, 295, read8, Lnpar o 

### ar3 follows~ “F’z.=ovided

### thBt sohooldi8tPiCtP in oatmties having a scholastic population equivalent to ons&alf of one 

### pupilpep square mile or 

### lesa in the entire county, or school dlstriots having 

### a scholastic population equivalent to one scholastic

le or 

### lessand containing one square miles or mope in 

### area, may be exempt from the average dally attendance requirement 

### and the teacher- upil quota requirement of this Aot, if Pt is so recommended by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and approved by the lslatlve Accountant, for the purpose ofLogmaintaining a~high school of, sixteen (, 6) or more affiliated units, vfth seven (7 or more teachers; but in no inatanoe may,the coat of 

### the,Byalisajlonfund exceed thirtyfive dollars $35VO0 Q~Ppupil in such d.ls* trlot, Andbe it further prvvided that Independent SC hundred (100P001 Districts comprised of one

sgua~e mile.6 or more9 

### and, that are nowa cr dlted and equipped to maintain a twelve 1

### 12 grade school with sixteen (16)

‘3 or more afflllated high school units, and . hevi I@ a 

### scholasticpopulationof less than 

### 1) pep square mile in the district My .~ one be exempt from thenaverage dally ,attipdanoe

.Hon. Preston Z;. Hutchlnson, page 

### 3 (v-659)

and teachop-pupil quota requirements of this 

### Act if it la se Pecommendedby the State Superintendent and approved by the Leglrlativo Aocountant POPthe pwpose of imintainlng en& accredited schools and employi lng the3 

### SIX(~) OFmop8teachers lnaludu)eplntcr*leat. The first sentence in the ebooe quoted param Is substantiaUy the saao a8 the third papagraph of ectlon 1, AFtlola I, S, B, 167, 49th $ The enlj ataHa1 dlfferenaa is that the Iatwe raise& th4 lidtatlen figwe fpoa The relasinl tha 50th Lo et’ the quctsd 

### paragraph wan

### rCr&si

**by**
wwaph In oountise having a aoholastlc pepulat 

### 0 one-half OPiess in the entire ownhaving scholastic populastlc neP sauaxw mile op ~ less arid containing 100 SQuaPomil&3 o~-mwe In area,” 

### urd the 

### $39U.uitatlon16 expzwasly avie aa to ‘suoh UetFlots 9

The second atptenoo lxasaid quoted pap a9eclfioallg oonce~ns ‘Independent School DlstPia s yw that are nowaccredited and equipped te Psalntaln a &2- grade eohool with at least 

### 16 affiliated high schoel UllitB9 and which have a s$holastic populat&on of less than one per square mile In the dfstriot. There ie no 

### $35 limitation madewith respeot to eald lndepon4ent school distpicta,

Wethink the ~Oth‘L~gislatwe by 

## its l 6o tlen of thio seaond sentence gwovlslon effectively and 1&WItional.ly removed In&e therein from the Mn.i?endent Qlatplcte as dealgnats atiow ~of the fir6t sentenoe Q lie oan peroeiee of no peason why the Legislatwe would have added this latter ppovioion except to free such deslgNted independent districts from the 

### $35 limftatlon appl%- cable ta al.1 school districts covred by the first part oi the paragraph i

Artiole VI ef Ho

### B. 295 **p~otidiw,** in pults

“It shall **be** tha dut of The State Supsrintrndent of Pub110 rznstpuotioa adHon. Preston E. Hutchinson, page 4 (V-659)

the LegislativeAccountant to take such action and to make such rules and pegulatlons not inconsistentwlth the tepms of this Act as may be necessary to carry out the ppovlslona of this Act, and for the best interest of the schools for whose benefit the Funds ape appropzlated, tion
An examination of the several applications

### for State-aid attached to the opinionpequeat, which were submittedby certain Independent achooP districts quallfging under the second sentence of the third paragraph of Section 1 of Article I of saidAct, reveals that the State Superintendenthas puled in this matter to the effect that said independent school districts are not limitedby the $35 provision applicable to school districts qualifyingunder the first sentence in said paragraph four of Section 1, As indicatedhereinabove,we think the State Superintendenthas puled in this mat.ter**con** sistent with the terms of said Act,

The Leglslatwe, by its enactment of the second sentencep~ovlsion in the third paragraph of Section 1 of Article I, H. B. 295, Acts 1947, intentionallyremoved the sparsely settled independent school dlstzicts therein designated from the $35 limitation applicable to other school dlatricts coveredby said Act,

**YOUPS** velpytzulg,
A'PPOBNEYGEBEBAL OF TEXAS

CEO:mw Chester E, Clllson Assistant

APPROVED:

~, $ik.& jL.2 ATI'OREEY

GENERAL