-E Ah ORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

WVILL WILSON 

A1ToRNEY GENERAL 

.6iUSllN If. TEXAS 

January 4, 1960 

Honorable He,nry Wade Opinion NO. ~~-763 

District Attorney 

Record6 Building Re: Whether or ,not Senate 

Dallas 2, Texas Bill 178, 56th Legislature, Regular Session, 

requires that the Commissioners’ Court of 

Dallas County provide 

for an annual audit of 

the Independent School 

District of the City of 

Dear Mr. Wade: Dallas. 

We quote as follows from your recent letter: 

“The question Involved with Mr. Lynn in this 

opinion Is whether the Independent school district 

of the City of Dallas should be Included in the 

county audit . Mr. Lynn, the County Auditor, is not 

fully satisfied from a legal etandpolnt whether the 

independent school district of the City of Dallas 

should be included in the audit. Owing to the fact 

that the city schools in Dallas operate indepsndently 

of the Commissioners Court and the County of Dallas 

officially we are not inclined to believe that the 

district should be Included In the county audit. However, the Auditor desires an opinion from your office 

on the subject Involved in House Bill 178 of the 56th 

Legislature applicable to annual county audits.” 

Section 1 of Senate Bill 178, Acts of the 56th 

Legislature, Regular Session, 

Statutes) provides as follows: 

(Article 1641-d, Vernon’s Civil 

‘\ 

“In every county in the State of Texas having 

a population of 350,000 inhabitants or more, accordlng to the last preceding Federal Census, an annual 

Independent audit shall be made of all books, records, 

and accounts of the district, county and precinct officers, agents or employees , including regular auditors 

of the counties and all governmental units of the county 

hospitals, farms and other Institutions of the county, 

and all matters pertaining to the fiscal affairs of the 

county. w 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 2 (m-763) 

Section 35 of Article III of the Texas Constitution 

1 provides: 

"No bill. . . . shall contain more than one 

subject, which ahall be expressed in its title. 

But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, 

which shall not be expressed in the title, such 

act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as 

shall not be so expressed." (Emphasis ours). 

The title of Senate Bill 178 reads in part as follows: 

"An Act providing that in all counties having 

a population of 350,000 inhabitants or more according to the last preceding Federal Census, an annual 

audit shall be made of all county books, records, and 

accounts of district, county and precinct officials, 

agents, or employees including all governmental units 

of the county, hospitals, farms, and other institutions of the county and all matters pertaining to the 

fiscal affairs of the county; . . ." (Emphasis ours). 

The word "county", as used in the caption, must be 

treated as, referring to "county government". It is a well 

known rule of statuto&ry construction t'tiat the meaning of a word 

is to",be ascertained by reference to the words asSQclated 

with it. 39 Tex.Jur. 204, Statutes, Sec. 109. The word ..county" 

is used repeatedly and consistently in the act in such a way as 

to mean the political unit of government rather than the geographical area. If otherwise construed the act would require an 

audit of every institution, public and private, in the county 

area. A construction that will make a statute ridiculous or 

absurd will never be adopted if the language is susceptible of 

any other meaning. 39 Tex.Jur. 222, Statutes, Sec. 118. 

Thus, to the extent that Section 1 of the act relates 

to "books , records and accounts of the district, county and 

precinct officers, agents or employees ' that are not county, books, 

records and accounts, that is, books, records and accounts of the 

county government, it,' In our opinion, embraces a subject not expressed in the title of the bill, and would therefore, be invalid 

to-such extent by reason of contravening Section 35, Article III 

of the Texas Constitution. Even if any other language of the act 

could be construed as making the audit requirement applicabie to 

independent school districts, such requirement would relate only 

to county books, records and accounts, If any, of such district 

due to the caption. 
. . . 

Honorable Henry Wade, page 3 (~~-763) 

It seems clear to us, however, that the Legislature 

actually Intended for the act to apply only to county government 

and the various units, Institutions and agencies thereof. Aside 

from the aforesaid effect of the word ‘county” In the caption in 

describing the kind of records to which the act applies, the 

presence of the word in the caption reveals a significant clue 

to the real intention of the Legislature in enacting the statute. 

The reference In Section 1 to “district” officers, 

agents or employees 1s in no way inconsistent with this construction inasmuch as certain officers of county government are 

nominally styled district officers, for example, the District 

Clerk. 

The validity of this construction is confirmed by the 

language of Section I. wherein all of the persons and activities 

expressly enumerated as being Included are described as being 

“of the county”. 

Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the act are persuasive 

In this respect since they provide for the employment of the 

auditor by the County Commissioners 1 Court and further provide 

for the auditor to be paid out of the general fund of the county. 

It is unlikely that the Legislature Would give the duty of employing the auditor to the Commlssloners~ Court If the audit 

were intended to be directed at other units of government. Moreover, It Is especially doubtfulthat the Legislature would require 

the expenditure of county funds for the audit of some other unit 

of government which has Its own tax moneys, and which would receive the benefit of such audit. 

Therefore, your Inquiry resolves Itself into a question 

of whether the books, records, and accounts of an officer, agent 

or employee of an Independent school district are books, records, 

and accounts of the county government. 

Article 1641, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, Acts of 1923, 

providing for appointment of a special auditor by the Commissioners’ Court, contains language which in all material respect A 

is identical to that of Section 1 of the subject act. Tnat statute has never been construed by this Department or by any Court 

as warranting the appointment of a special auditor by the Commissioners’ Court to audit the books of an Independent school 

district. 

Article 1467, Revised Civil Statutes, Acts of 1905, 

&&fied now in Vernon’s Civil Statutes as Article 1651), pro- 
Honorable Henry Wide, page 4 (W’W-763) 

“The auditor shall have a general oversight 

of all the books and records of all the officers 

of the county, district or State, who may be 

authorized or required by law to receive or collect any money, funds, fees or other property for 

the use of, or belonging to, the county; . . .” 

It has been held that this statute gives the County 

Auditor no sunervlslon over the funds of a common school dlstrict of the county. Houston National Exchanne Bank v. School 

District No. 25, Harris Count& 185 S W 589 (Clv.App. 1916) 

The Court based Its decision on the reasoning that the funds-of 

a school district are not “funds for the use of or belonging to 

the county”. With even greater force the reasoning of that 

opinion applies to Independent school districts since, under 

the laws of this State, the county has less to do with lndependent school districts than common school dlstrlcts. 

The County Superintendent has. certain limited duties 

with regard to Independent school districts, but It has been 

held that though, In a sense he is a county officer and called 

a “County Superintendent”, he is In fact the ,officer &nd agent 

of the State and not of the county with respect to school matters. 

Webb County v. Board of School Trustees of Laredoic’T7Fx. 131, 

. . &(1901j ; 37BT ” ex.Jur. 230, schools, s . 

Trustees of independent school districts have been held 

to be county officers only to the extent of, coming within the 

purview of the statutes providing for the removal of county Officers and the contest of elections for a coun,ty offloe. 37-B 

Tex.Jur. 235, Schools, Sec. 83. 

100; 

The fact Is that Independent school districts are 

legal entitles whloh are bodies corporate and politic separate 

and apart from county government. West& v. One, 68 S.W. 

(Civ.App. 1902, error ref.); Royce TI 

v. Relnhardt, 159 S.W. 1010 (c __ ~_ 

stated In Texas Jurisprudence: 

ldependent School District 

Iv.ADD. 1913, error ref.). AS 

“An Independent school district Is managed 

and controlled by a board of trustee& or city 

or town council, indewendent of the count& e .‘I 

37-B.Tex.Jur. 137, Schools, Set, 17. (Emphasis 

ours ) . 

r 

In view of the foregoing, it is our opinion that the 

books, records and accounts of an independent school district 
Honorable Henry Wade, page 5 (WW-763 ) 

are not books, records and accounts of the county government. 

You are accordingly advised that the Dallas Independent School 

District should not be Included In the audit provided for by 

Senate Bill 178, Acts of the 56th Legislature, Regular Session. 

---w-m- SUMMARY 

., 

Senate Bill 178, Acts of the 56th Legislature, 

Regular Session (Article 1641-d, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes) does not require the Commissioners~ 

Court of Dallas County to provide an annual audit 

of the Dallas Independent SChOGl District. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texae 

HGB:mg 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Lawrence Hargrove 

James R. Irion, III 

B. H. Tlmmlns, Jr. 

John Wildenthal, Jr. 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Leonard Passmore