Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN + \ Eonorsble Joe J. Zieher District Attorney San Augustine, Texas Dear Sir: .oontraatwi schooldiet yees herein mefitlonedshall begin on July 1st epd end on June 30th of the year terminating the contract.* From your letter we gather that the district to which rou refer Is governed not by Article 2781, but by Artiole 2809, Revised Civil Statutes,the applicableparts of whfch read as follcws: "The board of trustees so eleoted shall employ a superintendentfor the district, who shall be cleated for one ~yet%ror for two.years as the trudees may determine, fan. Joe. I. Yisher, r;)rii 3, 1939, Psge 2 and wko , Iri eddltiun tc i.is duties as Superintendent, stieiibe a Leacher in one of the elementary schools or t!ic t:i& schocl of the district. . . . Ccntracts between the trustees axt tlio district euperintendent and teachers s.SaflLc in wriiing and subject to the approval of the county superinteodentof the county wherein Such dietrict is situated." Referringbriefly to Artiolt~2781, you will notice that 88108does not in its terms authorizethe making of twelve months aontracts by trusteesof independentschool districts,but rather proceeds upon the assumptionthat such contracts could be aade, nnd rightly so we think. Article es00 provides for the amploymnt ofamxperlntendentiora temoi one yearorfot two year8a8 the . truataes amy determine. The statute does not undsrtake to set out .- lndet%lljustwhatthe contractsballoontaln. It&oes notre@Ue ' JG that the teacher or snperlntend~t still be paid monthiy ior twelm : aonths or monthly r0r nine axmths only. Xi the parties should agree .' I- tc it, tharc is nothing to prevent their aontraat b&kg for the r ouperlntandentto receive his ycas*s sslary in trelva monthly .:.y. :, i.ilxu$tallment5.It is lmmaterlalthat he may be In aetlmsenioi'`` ' ? 6. anlynjnesmnthsd~theyear. Eren thou& he were o$hersW ::: 1 r-;entitlsd to receive the.wholeyear*6 pay during the nine months of. . ,;tr aotlre sonice, nevertheless,it would bq-within his pouer to post-'~ ' pow the aaorualota part oftbatsalary 8otbat6arae skalltall : A' due dutlng the three auwmer months that he is not in active SorTiQa. i,,. :.Thaesuperlntemdenthavlng~edtothat,itwculd be amatterof' ..whlah the sahooldistriat hating so aontraotedcould not oo@aln. f Our auswer to your first question,+hsrerorti, 5.5ia the afflxmatirqt It has already been noted that Article 89Bl.doesnot apply to ths'dkstrictunder consldsratlon. Even if it did, it has been held In the ease of Smith v. lllilrtln IndependentSchool Distrlot, 8S 5. W. (I?) 855, that a superintendsat would not be precludedfrosi reco~erlneon a twelve months contract,notwIthstandingthe beg- date is fired at a date other than July lst. Our answer to yorrr second question,therefore,is that it Is not neoessary to the validity of the contract that the beginning date of the ssms shall be Julylst. In view of the above snswer to your llrst two questiOns, there is no need to answer the third. Yours very truly AkZI?EYGlWUL OFTEXAS BY-du Glenn B. Lewla Assistant