Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AlJSTtN
c.
@b&D c. MANN
-” .UU-.
Honorable X. E. Griffin
county iLttornsp
Young Co-Q
Graharc, iexas
Dear sir:
*e ere in reoeipt ot
aieb you request the opinion
of whether a board of aonmon
oontraote with three tea&a
87erage dally attendanoe 18 You &ate thnt the
~%ehool does not have any ne e atate aid in.my
nnnner.*
ing such oontraets will
not create a &eSici
0, Betised Civil Statutea,
make croatract~ with
la or their dlatriot, but
they may hare settled
in such dietriot ainee the seholaafie aenaue was taken,
shall be entitled to receive all the benefits oi the aehool~
or such dietriot. Ia a diet-riot that levies a spedal
sohool tax the truetees sh&l hare the right to fnorease
the aalariee of tea&em and the scholaatle age, an(l map
also have the dohoole taught longer than six aotlths, if
it is deemad advisable.*
Eon. '. i;:.
Griffin, key 2, 1939, &ge 2
IX ;in&etou v. wmtin,.,jT.C.k. 1901) 65 :~.:..606, the
court had th:s statute before it?or consideration j.ze case in
which three teaci.urotea bee- hired bi:Lthe avera;e daily attendar,ce
was kss than G5 pupils. Tke contract of e&ploy:.entbad been
approved by the;county superictendent, but he refused to approve
certain salary vouchers issued tc tbe teaaher. In holding the
contract binding On the district, the court stated:
"Construing together articles 3946, 3559, 3959a and
3961,,R. i:.1895 (ocw contained 10 articles 2750 k 2749,
R. C. S. 3.9251,we are of opinion that the trustees are
therein empowered to ascertain the existenae of the
$aats rendering the employment ot assistants neoessary;
that the exeroise or this power is Judicial, not minister-
ial, rests solely woith them, and Is a matter with whlah
the teaahers hate nothing to do. having exeralsed the
power by appointing the tsaoher, the disoretlon thus
.axaraiBeb oannot be disturbed or inquired into %a pro-
oe&lng of thls'aort, espeol~lly 5.n view of the raot that
the oouaty.superintsndent approved their aotion in this
ease, ana approved the teaoher*s oontraot so made.* The
governing xule on this question is analogous to that
nhioh controls where the legislaturs is required to pa68
no speoial law until notioe iCgiren a6 r%quir+d by the
oonetitPtion. If such a law is passed the oourts will
oonolu~i~elp presume that they, la the exercise of the
jadloial power thus oonferred, hare founA the preeeaee
OS the Zaets whloh authorired them to ast. Of oourse; we
do not mesh to say that the judloial powers of sohtil
trastees is In any sense so absolute. Xi this riew of the
law is aorreot, then appellaat~s wife, the teaoher Ia this
oase, hail the right to aooapt the employment tendered~ and,
having bouad themselves by a legal eontraot, the oounty
authorltlea cannot and ought not to be heard to qusstion
the ralidlty of the oontraet so made. To hold othenrlse
would be to seriously oripple our publfa suhool Bydam,
for teaohers would then have to asoertain at their psril
the existence of the faots authorizing their appointment.
Suppose the trustees hail aotuslly met and deter&ned that
the average dally attendanoe had reached 85, and had
oontracted with plaintiff' as they did, ana suppose she
had thereafter actually taught,, but the average attendanoe
of 85 had not been maintaineg.':after she began, end suppose
it was aftexwards ascertainah that the average baily
attendance had never at any time reaohed eight+five, and
that the trustees had made an honest mistake in so finding;
EOZ . &_.I:.Griffin, Ay 2, 1939, Pape 3
couid it be held, 6.sar,ysound principle, ibat x.iieteacher
mist lace tke mward for--Lerservices because of this
zistake?~ Lr silpposethe teacher seekinp empioymtintshould
differ iith the trustees as to Che facts, and should refuse
to coiltract'c2'hetrustees ro,xidthen be robbed Or this
necessary discrntiou, and it would be transferred to
teachers not yet in any way connected with the school.
This necessary discretion n;ustbe placed soltewhere,in
order to render the system efficient, and it has been
distinctly placed in the board of trustees. ;$abold,
thereiore, that ii:eattendance was a matter with which the
teacher had nothing to do, and that the contraot made with
her by the board and approved by the auperfntendent wa6
ralid."
In riew of the conetruotl.on plaoed upon Article Z78Q by
the oourt in the foregoing aam; you ar6 advised that valid
tsaohere' contracrts may be eseouted ~by the board of trustsas of
a 00m-m school district underthe faote 6tated, pmPia6a. however,
that such contraots are approved by the oounty.6UpOr~t6ndant.
ATTOI2MEYGEREIULOFTEXAS
By ,&&.&&a&-d
cs 1 c. CssmwlOk~
ASSit#tMt
ccc :#
,.;..