Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1991 )


Menu:
  •                                Q9fficeof tly Bttornep @eneral
    Mate of UJexae
    DAN MORALES                                  November 8.1991
    .ATTORS:EY
    GENERAL
    Honorable Gib Lewis                                Opinion No. DM-55
    Speaker
    Texas House of Representatives                     Re: Whether service on the board of a
    P. 0. Box 2910                                     county education district by a board
    Austin Texas 78768-2910                            member of an independent school
    district constitutes unconstitutional dual
    office holding, and related questions
    (RQ-142)
    Dear Mr. Speaker:
    You ask three questions about the propriety of members of the board of the
    Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District setving in other positions. Each
    of your questions requires us to consider the applicability of both the constitutional
    prohibition on dual office holding, Tex. Const. art. XVI, 5 40, and the common-law
    doctrine of incompatibility. Article XVI, section 40, of the Texas Constitution
    prohibits a person from holding two “offices of emolument.” The common-law
    doctrine of incompatibility prevents a person from holding two offices where one
    off%e might impose its policies on the other or subject it to control in some other
    way; See Attorney General Opinions JM-1266 (1990); JM-129 (1984); JM-97
    (1983). It also prohibits an officer from employing himself, that is, from holding an
    employment subordinate.io his office. Attorney General Opinion JM-1266 (1990);
    Letter AdvisoryNo. 114 (1975).
    You first ask ðer a member of the board of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford
    Independent School District may also serve on the board of the county education
    district of Tarrant County.1 The Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District
    *Your specific qumtion is whether a member of the board of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford
    Independent School District may serve as “president”of the board of the county education district. The
    statutes gowning county education districts make no reference to the position of president of the
    board. There is a reference to the “chaimun.” Educ. Code 5 20.944(b) (chairman may caU meetings);
    see uLso id 9 20.943(e) (commissioner of education may adopt roles relating to the operation and
    admiitration     of county education districts). Presumably, the members of the county education
    district in question chose one of their members to serve as the head of the board for procedural
    P-    279
    Honorable Gib Lewis - Page 2                   (DM-55)
    is a component of the county education district of Tarrant County. See Educ. Code
    5 20.941(a). The boards of the component districts of a county education district
    choose one or two of their members to serve on the board of the county education
    district. Id 9 20.943(b).
    Service on the county education district board is an additional duty of office
    of the school board members. Id In other words, a school board member serving
    on a county education district is not to be considered to be holding two different
    offices. If an individual is holding only one office, the constitutional prohibition on
    dual office holding is not applicable. See Tam Tumpikz Autk v. Shepperd, 
    279 S.W.2d 302
    (Tex. 1955) (legislature may impose extra duties upon statutory
    officials). Further, members of the board of the county education district receive no
    compensation for their service, although they are entitled to reimbursement for
    necessary expenses. Educ. Code 0 20.944(c); see also id 0 23.19(e) (trustees of
    independent school districts do not receive compensation). Reimbursement for
    actual expenses does not constitute an emolument for purposes of article XVI,
    section 40. See Attorney General Opinion JM-1266 at 3. Thus, even if a school
    board member who was also serving on the board of a county education district was
    considered to be holding a second office, the office would not be an office of
    emolument and the constitutional prohibition on dual offke holding would not
    apply.
    The common-law doctrine of incompatibility is also inapplicable here since
    the Education Code requires that members of the board of a county education
    district be members of the boards of the component districts of the county education
    district. Even if service in two positions is incompatible under the common-law test,
    the common-law rule is inapplicable where a statute authorizes service in both
    positions, since the legislature has authority to change the common law by adopting
    a statute. Tex. Const. art. XVI, 8 48; Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code %5.001; see ako
    Attorney General Opinion JM-1157 (1990).
    Your second question is whether a member of the board of the Hurst-Euless-
    Redford Independent School District may serve as a teacher in a different school
    district. Such service would not constitute dual office holding since a teacher is not
    an officer. See Letter Advisory No. 137 (1977). Article XVI, section 40, also
    contains the following proviso:
    purposes. For purposes of your question, there is no legal disthchon behveen the chairman and other
    board members.
    p.     280
    Honorable Gib Lewis - Page 3                (DM-55)
    State employees or other individuals who receive all or part of
    their compensation either directly or indirectly from funds of the
    State of Texas and who are not State officers, shall not be barred
    from serving as members of the governing bodies of school
    districts, cities, towns, or other local governmental districts;
    provided, however, that such State employees or other
    individurds shall receive no salary for serving as members of
    such governing bodies.
    That proviso would not prohibit the situation you describe since a school board
    member receives no compensation. Educ. Code 9 23.19(e).
    Further, the common-law doctrine of incompatibility would not prohibit a
    school board member from working for another district. See gerreruJ& Letter
    Advisory Nos. 114 (1975); 54 (1973) (language from article XVJ, section 40, set out
    above, does not override common-law incompatibility). Previous decisions of this
    office have applied two discrete tests to determine whether incompatibility exists:
    one is whether the individual holds two offices that involve conflicting loyalties; the
    other is whether there is self-employment. Attorney General Gpimon JM-1266. A
    person has contlicting loyalties if he occupies “two offices where one office might
    thereby impose its policies on the other or subject it to control in some other way.
    Attorney General opinion JM-129 at 1. This kind of incompatibility only exists if
    the two positions in question are both offices. Attorney General Opinion JM-1266
    at 4. Because a teacher does not hold an office, the conflicting loyalties standard
    would not apply to the facts in question. The doctrine of incompatibility also
    prohibits an officer from employing himself. Letter Advisory No. 114. Thus, a
    school board member could not be employed by the district for which he is a board
    member. However, his employment by a different district would not put him in the
    position of working for himself.2
    Your last question is whether a member of the board of the Hurst-Euless-
    Bedford Independent School District may serve as a part-time staff member in the
    Bedford office of a state representative. A staff member is an employee and
    3ThcfaftthatthctwodirtridsinquMtionarebothinthesamcwuntycducatioodirtriddocs
    not raise an issue of self-employment. The board member in question is not a member of the board of
    the county cdocation d&trk% We need not address whether iwompatiiity        would arise if the board
    memtcr were a member of the board of the county education district that encompassed both districts.
    p.   281
    Honorable Gib Lewis - Page 4            (DM-55)
    therefore would not hold two civil offices of emolument if he serves on a school
    board. See Attorney General Opinion H-10 (1973) (secretary of a state legislator is
    not a state officer). Nor is there incompatibility in this situation. Because a
    legislative staff member does not hold an office, the aspect of incompatibility that
    prohibits a person from holding two offices with conflicting loyalties is inapplicable.
    The Self-employment aspect of incompatibility is also inapplicable here.
    Neither the prohibition on dual office holding set out in
    article XVI, section 40, of the Te&s Constitution nor the
    common-law rule of incompatibility prohibits a school board
    member from serving on the board of the county education
    district of which his school district is a component, from serving
    as a teacher in a different school district, or from working part-
    time in a state legislator’s office.
    Very truly yours,
    DAN      MORALES
    Attorney General of Texas
    WILL PRYOR
    First Assistant Attorney General
    MARY KELLER
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    JUDGE ZOLLlE STEAKIXY (Ret)
    Special Assistant Attorney General
    p.    282
    Honorable Gib Lewis - Page 5          (DM-55)
    RENBAHICKS
    Special Assistant Attorney General
    MADELEINB B. JOHNSON
    chair, Opinion Committee
    Prepared by Sarah Woelk
    Assistant Attorney General
    p.   283
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DM-55

Judges: Dan Morales

Filed Date: 7/2/1991

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017