-E Ah ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

WVILL WILSON A1ToRNEY GENERAL .6iUSllN If. TEXAS January 4, 1960

Honorable He,nryWade OpinionNO. ~~-763 District Attorney Record6 Building Re: Whether or ,notSenate Dallas 2, Texas Bill 178, 56th Legislature,Regular Session, requires that the Commissioners’ Court of Dallas County provide for an annual audit of the IndependentSchool District of the City of Dear Mr. Wade: Dallas.

We quote as follows fromyour recent letter: “The question Involvedwith Mr. Lynn in this opinion Is whether the Independent schooldistrict of the City of Dallas shouldbe Included in the county audit

. Mr. Lynn, the County Auditor, is not fully satisfied from a legal etandpolntwhether the independent school district of the City of Dallas shouldbe included in the audit. Owing to the fact that the city schools in Dallas operate indepsndently of the CommissionersCourt and the County of Dallas officiallywe are not inclined to believe that the district shouldbe Included In the county audit. However, the Auditor desires an opinion fromyour office on the subject Involved in House Bill 178of the 56th Legislature applicable to annual county audits.” Section 1 of SenateBill 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 inhabitantsor more, accordlng to the lastpreceding Federal Census, an annual Independentaudit shallbe made of all books, records, and accounts of the district, county and precinct officers, agents or employees, including regular auditors of the countiesand all governmentalunits of the county hospitals, farms and other Institutionsof the county, and all matters pertaining to the fiscal affairs of the county.

wHonorable Henry Wade, page 2 (m-763)

Section 35 of Article III of the Texas Constitution 1 provides:
"Nobill.

. . . shall containmore than one

subject,which ahallbe expressed in its title. But if any subject shallbe embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shallbe void only as to so much thereof,as shall not be so expressed." (Emphasisours). The title of Senate Bill 178 reads in part as follows:
"AnAct providing that in all countieshaving a population of 350,000 inhabitantsor more according to the last precedingFederal Census, an annual audit shallbe made of all countybooks, records, and accounts of district, county and precinct officials, agents, or employees includingall governmentalunits of the county,hospitals, farms, and other institutions of the countyand all matters pertaining to the fiscal affairs of the county;
. . ." (Emphasisours). The word "county",as used in the caption,must be treated as,referring to "countygovernment". It is a well known rule of statuto&ry construction t'tiat the meaning of a word is to",be

ascertainedby reference to thewords asSQclated with it. 39 Tex.Jur. 204, Statutes, Sec. 109. The word ..county" is used repeatedly and consistentlyin the act in such a way as to mean the politicalunit 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 thatwill 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, embracesa subjectnot expressed in the title of thebill, and would therefore,be invalid to-such extentby reason of contraveningSection 35, Article III of the Texas Constitution. Even if any other language of the act couldbe construed as making the audit requirementapplicabie to independent school districts, such requirementwould relate only to countybooks, 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, Institutionsand agencies thereof. Aside from the aforesaid effect of theword ‘county”In the caption in describing the kind of records to which the act applies, the presence of theword in the caption reveals a significantclue 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 inconsistentwith 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 confirmedby the language of Section I. wherein all of thepersons and activities expressly enumeratedas 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 Commissioners1Court and furtherprovide for the auditor to be paid out of the general fund of the county. It is unlikely that the LegislatureWould 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 Legislaturewould require the expenditure of county funds for the audit of some other unit of governmentwhich has Its own tax moneys, and which would receive thebenefit 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 specialauditor by the Commissioners’ Court, contains languagewhich in all material respect A is identical to that of Section 1 of the subject act. Tnat statute has neverbeen construedby this Department or **by** any Court as warranting the appointment of a special auditorby the Commissioners’ Court to audit thebooks of an Independent school district. Article 1467, Revised Civil Statutes,Acts of 1905, &&fied now inVernon’s Civil Statutes as Article 1651), pro-Honorable Henry Wide, page 4 (W’W-763)

“The auditor shallhave a general oversight of all thebooks and records of all the officers of the county,district or State, who may be authorized or requiredby 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 statutegives the County Auditor no sunervlslonover the funds of a common school dlstrict of the county. Houston National ExchanneBank v. School District No. 25, Harris Count& 185S W 589 (Clv.App.1916) The Court based Its decision on the reasoning that the funds-of a schooldistrict are not “fundsfor 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 countyhas less to do with lndependent schooldistricts than common school dlstrlcts.

The County Superintendenthas.certain limited duties with regard to Independent school districts,but It has been held that though, In a sensehe is a county officer and called a “CountySuperintendent”,he is In fact the ,officer&nd agent of the State and not of the countywith respect to schoolmatters. Webb County v. Board of School Trustees of Laredoic’T7Fx. 131,

. . &(1901j 37BT

; ” ex.Jur. 230, schools, s . Trustees of independent school districtshave been held to be county officers only to the extent of,comingwithin the purview of the statutesproviding 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 entitleswhloh are bodies corporateand 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: ldependentSchool District Iv.ADD. 1913, error ref.). AS

“An Independent school district Is managed and controlledby a board of trustee& or city or town council, indewendentof 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 districtHonorable Henry Wade, page 5 (WW-763 )

are not books, records and accounts of the county government. You are accordinglyadvised that the Dallas Independent School District shouldnot be Included In the audit provided for by Senate Bill 178, Acts of the 56th Legislature,Regular Session.
SUMMARY ---w-m-

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

Regular Session (Article1641-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 JamesR. Irion, III B. H. Tlmmlns, Jr. JohnWildenthal, Jr. REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Leonard Passmore