c . . 

RE ~ORNEY GENEKAL 

OFTEXAS 

Dr. J. W. Edgar 

Commissioner of Education 

Texas Education Agency 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Dr. Edgar: 

Opinion NO. ~~-648 

Re: Validity of certain 

action taken at a 

meeting of trustees 

of an Independent 

School District subsequent to the election but prior to the 

qualification of newly 

elected trustees who 

were not notified of 

and did not attend 

said meeting. 

Your request for an opinion recites that three 

new trustees were elected to the Board of Trustees of 

an Independent School District on April 4, 19%. On 

April 14, 1959, six members of the old Board met at a 

special called meeting. Verbal notification of the 

meeting was given by the prlnclpal of the school to all 

seven former members of the Board. The seventh member, 

one of those defeated in the election, did~not attend. 

One candidate elected on April 4, 1959, was present at 

the meeting and sought permission to sit In, because he 

had been elected and the business appearing on the agenda 

therefor Involved next year's business. The Board voted 

to go Into executive session, six voted therefor and the 

newly elected member was asked to leave. The 'president 

of the old Board (defeated at the election) presided 

throughout. 

Your letter recites that the minutes of the 

April 14 meeting show that the Board read and approved 

minutes, canvassed election returns, hired teachers, 

recommended bus driver, employed cafeteria workers, employed janitor and approved classification of district 

as a ten grade school. All teachers were given an addltlonal extended year on their contract and two whose 

contracts expired this year were each given two-year 

contracts. The principal's contract was extended one 

more year for a total of three. 
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (~~-648) 

The three new Board members were notified of 

their election on April 23, by letter postmarked 

April 22. 

The newly elected trustees questioned the 

validity of the April 14 meeting called for purposes 

other than canvassing of the election returns, since 

they were not notified of the meeting and were not 

given opportunity to participate as newly elected 

members In the transaction of school business affecting the operation of the district for the ensuing 

years. 

Article 2750a-1, Vernon's Civil Statutes, reads 

as follows: 

'Trustees of any Common School 

District or Consolidated Common School 

District shall have authority to make 

contracts for a eriod of time not in 

excess of two (2 P years with principals, 

superintendents, and teachers of said 

Common School Districts or Consolidated 

Common School Districts, provided that 

such contracts shall be approved by the 

County Superintendent. No contract may 

be signed by the Trustees of Common School 

,, Districts or Common Consolidated School 

iuntilthee 

or trustees have qualified and taken the 

oath of office." (Emphasis ours) 

The foregoing Article prohibits trustees of Common 

School Districts or Common Consolidated School Districts 

from signing contracts with teachers subsequent to the date 

of the trustee election and prior to the date of qualification 

of newly elected members of the Board. This Article, however, 

Is not applicable to Independent School Districts. We find 

no provision of the statutes which so restricts the authority 

of the Board of Trustees of an Independent School District. 

Attorney General's Opinion 0-765 (1939) held that 

valid contracts with principals, superintendents and teachers, 

not In excess of the period authorized by statute, may be 

executed by a majority of the Board of Trustees of a Condolidated School District although such contracts are signed after 

an election for trustees has been held in the district and before the newly elected trustees have qualified and taken the 
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 3 (~~-648) 

oath of office. Thla opinion was written prior to the 

enactment of Artiole 2750a-1 In 1941. 

Since the,Legisliture has not seen fit to restrict 

the contraotlng authority of Boards of Trustees of Independent 

Sohool Districts prior to the qualification of newly elected 

trustees, as it has done In the ease of Common School Districts 

and Common Consolidated School Districts, we are compelled to 

hold that the action taken by the Board of Trustees at the 

April 14 meeting is not Illegal merely because taken prior to 

the qualification of the new Board members. Artlole 2779 of 

Vernon’s Civil Statutes authorizes and directs that the trustees shall meet within twenty days after the election or as 

soon thereafter a8 poesible for the purpose of organizing. We 

find no statutory restrlotions upon the authority of the old 

Board to administer the affairs of the school district until 

such time a8 the election returns have been canvassed, certlflcates of electlon issued to the newly, elected members and : 

the latter heave qualified. According to your request, It appears that these steps ,were aooomplished In the manner and 

within,the time presoribed by law in the instant case. 

Business transacted and oontracts entered Into by a 

Board of Trustees of an Independent School Diatriat, under 

the faots stated, are not Illegal 

merely because occurring aubse-’ 

quent to the election of three (3) 

new trustees but prior to their 

qualifying for office. 

Very truly your8, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

Leonard Pasamore 

Assistant 

LP: rm:mfh 
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (~~-648) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. K. Richards, Chairman 

J. Milton Richardson 

Marvin H. Brown, Jr. 

Marvin R. momas, Jr. 

RBvIEWFJ3 FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert