### ~~%~A~oRNEY GENERAL, OFTEXAS

July 28, 1949.

. Hon. Roy fi. Bill

County Attorney Opinion lo. V-866. Runnels County Ballingor, Texae RenPropriety of calling ooneolldation election upon petition filed under Art. 2806 by restdents of a “dormant” di#triot a8 dofined in Art, VIII, S. 1). Dear Sira 116, Aots Slat Legislature,

Werefer to your r,eoent inquiry a8 to the authority of a "dormant" rohool distrlot (aa def'#.nedin Artlole VIII, 5. B, 116, Aot8 of the slat Legislature, 1949, and a8 oonetrudQ in 'opinion V-856 a copy of which is enoloeed) to petition for consolidation with a oontiEtoua mhool distriot,oprrstlng itr mohoolr and the 

### au orlty OS

### a ooumtyjudge to call ruch l leotien under Article 2806, V.C.S.

The Pourth paragraph of Article VIII, S.B. 116, read8 as followst

"The provlsiens herein for the aenaolidatlon of school dlatrlots by order of the county Board of Truetees 8halL be applloable only in the lnrtanors and olraumtances hrroArticle XII, the repealing olause of S,B, ll.6, repeals only those law8 which are Snconfliat with thle newly enaoted rtxltute. Th\sa,by virtue of the prov$.- rlone 81Artlole VIII quoted andArtiole XII, Article 2806 and other applioable rtatuter en eleotions for emasolidation and statutes on annexation have not been 

### repealed; they me in Pull force and effeat unless Article VIII ot S.B. 116 oonf'llcts therewith.

We have already stated in our Opinion Ro. V-855 that webelieve the primary purpose of Article VIIr, whenHon. Roy L. Hill, page 2 (V-866)

considered along with all provisions OSS.B. 116, 5s to provide a more expeditious method of abollshlng dormant’ sohool districts (as therein defined) and to requlre their consolidation “with an adjoining district or districts

.” Further, it is to provide a better arrangement of applicable situations for the revenue purposes of S.B,, 116 and to simplify the law governing the raising and dlsposltlon of school funds to finance this new Foundation School Program. That the Legislature ha8 the 

### powur to ao provide for the abollshlng of dormant sohool districts 5n the mannerset out in Article VIII 5s supBut wedo not construe Article VIII as provldlng the exclusive mannerby which dormant districts shall be oonsolidated with an adJoInIn& dfstrfct or districts, Wehave held that such dormant” districts must be oonsolldated, Sqr rticle VIII expressly so “authorizes md requires. OpYn5onV-855)

. However, the above quoted paragraph of Article VIII further sxpresaly prov54es that the dormant district consolidation proc,edure therein prescribed “shall not be construed to

. . . limit any existing statute pro$idlng e methods of school district consolidation,

Article 2806 Is an existing statute providing one other method of school district consolidation. Shoum advise herein that Article VII3 provides the only and exclusive method whereby dormant sohool dlatrlats, as therein defined, maybe consolidated, we would, in effect, hold that the authority granted to schaol distrIcta and the county judge in Article 2806 ia 15m5trd by and subdect to ;4heprovls5ons of Article VIII 5naoSar as such dormant school districts maybe involved o Suoh a construction would do violence to the underscored provisions of Article VIIIi

OScourse, where a county school board oonrolldates a “dormant” district as provided in Artlale VIII& that 58, passes its order to that effect, the “dormant dlstrlot has been abolished by such action. Kermit 1.9. z!&i&&$~ supra, at page 722. Sucharm

s ed y consol54ation no longer exists to act under Artlole 2806..,-

Bon, Roy L, Hill, Page 3 %V-866%

But IS, prfop to pasea e of a OoiWj board oonsolldation order as provided In frtlole VIII, such a dormant district acting 

### under Article 

### 2806SlleB the required proper petlt5on wfth the aouiity judge, the rules applicable to co-ordinate jI.u?58d5ot5~ 

### attaoh, lnvest5ng the couuty judge with exoluslve jurlsd5otPon and the m5nlstsrfal duty to call the oonaol54atfon eleotlon required In Artlcl Baker, 120Tex, 

### 307, ?3z=7D5st0 Ho: 11 X” lY3y-(Tex cric qipa 1 Common

School Diet,, error 

### GTZi7r”r.i ,

f ’romand **dur**
“2 the tfme p~lofo consol54at5on pPooeo45ngs under Artlole 

### 806are Sfrst fnitfated and enbing, the County school board would have no P jur584iot on to Wt sx matters affecting the status of a aehool 45strlat so Lavolvrd 0 

### However, sheuld tho slectlon called puvsuamt to Article 

### 2806rail to oarry, then the county bear4 would be at liberty to consol5date safd dormant” dlstrlct with an a4jofnlhg dfstpfct OFdistvfcta under Artfcle VIII, S,B, 

### 116,

A “dwm8nt’ sohool 42st~Oot a0 d@Siosd in Art5010 VIII, S,B, 116, Acts 

### 51reLogislaturo, maybu aoasel54a&r4 wfth an adgolm3.q dlstmlct or d5stP5ots by osnpl5amo wfth PPOvisions OSArtlole 

### 2806,V,C,S, SnohArt,lolo VIII 4oes not 

### prescribe,,the excfuslve method f%~~~snsol5datlon of a donant sohosl dlsc 

### Whereoensolf4at5on preaee45.48 em fnitfated by SW5ug a propor petitlen wfth the county ju4ge 

### as required 5nArticle 2806, prior to oonsol54at5on OSthe “dormant” distrlot by the oounty sohool bard undsrHOG, ROY 

### L.~1, page4 (V-866)

Article

VIII,S,B,116,theoowty ju@e mustcalltheelection forconsolOclatfon rmplredbyArtiole2806* Yoursverytruly, ATTORNEY

CU!BERAL

OFTEXAS