=‘D?EBcATIY)RNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

Honorable T. M. Trimble 

First Assistant 

State Superintendent of 

public Instruction 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

response to 

Opinion No. O-2838 

Re: Group Insurance for teachers 

in independent school districts 

and payment of premiums out of 

school funds. 

In your letter of Ootober 17, 1940, you request our opinion in 

the following questions: 

: "May the Board of Trustees of the Fort Worth 

Independent School District use local maintenance 

funds to pay the employer's part on a group life 

insurance premiun for the Fort Torth teachers? 

"Could the Board of Trustees of an independent 

school district make provision for the payment of the 

employer's part of the premium of group life insurance 

of its teachers, if provision is made in the teachers* 

contracts whereby this premiws payment is a prt of 

the teachers' annual salaries?" 

Y& are unable to find any statute which would authorize the 

trustws of the Fort Worth Independent School District to contract for or 

expend local maintenance funds to pay the employer's part of a group life 

insurance premium for the district's teachers. In the sbsence of such a 

statute, such funds may not be so expended. 

This question is in all material respects the ssme as that 

considered by t'nis department in our Opinion No. O-2469, copy of rhich is 

attached hereto, and it was them held that public school funds could not 

lx used to pay for group insurance. 

Your second question is answered in the negative for soveral 

reasons. 

(1) Section 1 of Article 47G4a provides: 
Bon. T. Y. Trhble, Page 2 (O-2838) 

"Group Life Incuranco ic horoby deciarod to bc 

that fona of life inourance ocvoring not loss thnn 

twenty-five employees writton under a. policy issued 

to the employer, the premiws for which ictc bo paid 

by the employer or by the employer and employee jointly and insuring all of his employees, or all of any 

class or classes thereof determined by conditions 

pertaining to the employment, for smcunts of insurance 

based upon scme plan whioh will preclude individual 

selection, andfor the benefit of persons other than 

the employer; . . ." 

It will be observed that group insuranae cannot under this statute bs had 

unless the school district pays its art of the premium. 

If your second question is predicated upon the idea of paying 

the teachers a salary, and then requiring them to pay the school districtsI 

portion of the premiurm for the insurance, such procedure nould not bring 

the insurance under the above definition of group insurance for the reason 

that the teachers would, in faot, bs paying all of the premium; while the 

above statute requires the school district to pay a part of the same. 

(2) If you intend by your second question to provide in the 

teachers' contracts to pay them so much money for salaries, provided a 

certain amount of same should be used to pay the school district's part of 

ths premium on group insurance, the plan would amount to nothing more than 

an evasion of cur ruling to the first question suhaittedr for the reason 

that you would still be doing indirectly what you cannot do directly. 

This principle is sustained by the'court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio 

in the case of Godson vs. Jones, 190 S.VL 2.53: 

"Appellant was the principal of school Xo. 1, 

district No. 2, sndwas being paid the sum of $75 

cut of the free school money of the state. About 

the same time of his employment as principal, he was 

also employed bythe trustees as janitor with a salary of $50 a month. Vouchers were issued to appellant 

for his services as janitor, and the county ,superintendent, N. S. Jones, apprcved two of them before he 

went cut of office. He was succeeded by Xiss Eva 

Staickland, and she refused to apwove the seven remaining vouchers. The matter ~8s appealed to the county 

board of education, then to the state supcrtitendent, 

and finally to the state board of education; the last 

tw, mentioned sustaining the county superintendent. 

No special tax was levied by sohools 1 and 2, with whioh 

appellant was connected, but vere run on state money 

alone. Appellant performed services both as principal 

and janitor'for nine months, the time for which he was 

employed by the trustees. Yiss Strickland resigned 
Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 3 (O-2838) 

and was suooesded by appellee. The vouchers were 

not presented to her for approval. 

"The court found that the contract with appellant, for his services as janitor was made to evade 

the terms of article 2780 and article 2781, Revised 

Statutes, whioh provide, among other things, that a 

teacher holding a first-grade certificate shall in 

no event reoeive more than $75 a month frcm the public free school fund. The court also found that a 

man named Tristan Ymldanado was also employed as 

janitor in the same school in which appellant was 

employed as principal and janitor, The law could not 

be evaded in that way, and the vouchers granted by 

complaoent trustees were properly rejected by the 

county superintendent. It is a preposterous proposition that a country school, or two country schools, 

would require the servioes of two janitors. Ve are 

oTthe opinionihat it was never intended that the 

principal of a school should be paid tvm salaries , 

cut of the public free school money. 

"The first section of article 2772, Rev. Stats., 

which is cited by appellant, provides that the state 

and county available school funds shall be used exclusively for the payment of salaries ofteachers and 

superintendents and fees for taking the soholastic 

cansuo, and we fail to see what aid and comfort that 

gives a man who is endeavoring to obtain a part of 

the school fund for services as a janitor, vhen he 

has drawn for the same time pay as principal of the 

sohool. It is true that in the second section of the 

artiole cited it is provided that a surplus of such 

state fund may be used to pay janitors and for other 

enumerated purpopes, but not to increase the pay of 

teachers. The other articles snd decisions cited do 

not sustain the contention of appellant. 

"The judgment is affirmed." 

In the case cited, the school trustees could not lawfully pay 

mere than $75.00 to the teacher as salary, and the tNStSeS undertook to 

give him additional money as janitor. The court held that it could not bs 

done. 

In your situation you cannot legally pay for group insuranoe 

with your school funis, and in cur opinion you would be doing the ssme 

thing by providing in the contracts with the teachers that they bs required 

to paythe distriot's part of the premilrm of the group insurance. 
Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 4 (O-2838) 

(3) If the trustees should provide in their contracts dth 

the teachers that theymustn.~e a certain part of thbir salary to pay 

for premiums on insurance, it would seem that the amount of the so-called 

salary which was to be used for the payment of such premiums would still 

be public money and, therefore, not available for the purohase of insurante. 

The Supreme Court of Unnesota, inthe case of State ox rel, 

Jennison vs. Rogers, reported in L.R.A. 58, page 663, involving a contract 

between trustees and teachers whereby a certain amount of the teachers' 

salaries was retained for-the purpose of creating a teachers' retirement 

fund, it MS held that the money so retained was still public money, and 

could not be so usedr 

"The authority of the board is also questioned 

upon the ground that the money retained is in fact 

public money, and not the private funds of the teach) 

a-6. It does not seem ver- material whether the money 

so assigned bs considered public or private funds -- 

the result must be the some. But it is interesting to 

notice what the praotical effect is of carrying cut the 

plan outlined in the petition. If the entire salary had 

been paid to relator, and he had then voluntarily relinquished or paid back 1 per cent thereof for the purposes 

expressed, it would clearly be private money; but 1 per 

cent never had been paid in fact, and it never vras contemplated that it should be. When the relator entered 

into the contract he surrendered avsolute control over 

that portion of his salary, and, in effect, entered'into 

a contract with the board that his salaly would bs 99 

per cent of the amount nominally stated. So from this 

view of the case it appears to us that the money retained nsvsr left the treasury, but remained publio money, 

and the board of education had no authority to divert it 

from the uses mentioned in the statute." 

This same case also holds that a contract between trustees and teachers, 

whereby the teachers are required to pay a certain amount of their salaries 

into a teachers' retirement fund could not be sustained on the ground that 

such plan would be in the interest of the schools, and the contract was 

declared to be ultra vires and void. 

If a contract creating a teachers retirement fbnd oould not be 

sustained, then, in cur opinion, school trustees, in the absence of some 

statute authorizing the same, would not have the power to require in 

teachers' contracts that they carry insurance of any kind. 
. 

Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 6 (O-2636) 

Until the Legislature has authorized the expenditure of 

school finds for the purchase of group life insurance, you are advised 

that it is cur opiniomthat such funds cannot be so used. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENFRAL OF TEXAS 

By /s/ Grover Sellers 

Grover Sellers 

First Assistant 

Enclosure 

APPROVED DEC 18, 1940 

/s/GERALD C. MA3iN 

ATTORNEY.GENSRAL OF TEXM 

: -. 

THIS OPINION CONSIDZRED 

Ali'D APPFJXED IN LXWl'ED 

CONFERENCE 

APPROVED 

Opinion Cqrrmittee 

By Bm 

Chairman