Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1966 )


Menu:
  •               E    TTO~XVEY        GENERAL
    OF    TEXAS
    February 3, 1966
    Honorable J. W. Edgar                 Opinion No. C-592
    Commissionerof Education
    Texas Education Agency                Re: Whether authority lies in
    Austin, Texas                             the County Judge to call
    an electionunder Article
    2767, v.c.s., for the
    abolishment of a school
    district consolidatedless
    than three years, and re-
    Dear Mr. Edgar:                           lated question.
    Your request for an opinion on the above-captioned
    matter is based upon facts stated in your letter as follows:
    "Almost two years ago, in February 1964,
    the Telephone Rural High School District and
    Sam Rayburn IndependentSchool District were
    consolidatedby election(s)had pursuant to
    Articles 2922L(7) and 2806, Vernon's Civil
    Statutes, to form the present Sam Rayburn
    (Consolidated)IndependentSchool District,
    located in Fannin County.
    "The County Judge of Fannin County has
    recently been presented with a petition signed
    by more than ten per cent of the qualified
    voters of said new consolidateddistrict re-
    questing he call an election pursuant to
    Article 2767, V.C.S., for the purpose of
    determiningwhether such school district
    should be abolished.
    "Opponentsto the petition have called
    the County Judge's attention to Article 2815,
    V.C.S., wherein is stated that no election for
    the dissolution of a consolidateddistrict shall
    be held until three years have elapsed after the
    date of the election at which such districts were
    -2858-
    Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (C-592)
    consolidated. Less than two years have elapsed
    since the Sam Rayburn district was created by a
    consolidationelection.*
    At the instance of the County Judge, you have re-
    quested an opinion on the following questions:
    "1. Under Article 2767, does authority
    lie in the County Judge to call an election
    for the abollshment of the school district
    consolidatedless than three years?
    “2.   If so, is it mandatory that he call
    it?"
    Article 2806, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides'for
    the calling of an election on the issue of consolidatingcon--
    tiguous common school districts, independentschool'districts,
    or combinationsof common and independentdistricts,upon the
    petition of twenty or a majority of the legally qualified voters
    of each of the affected districts. Article 2922L(V),Vernon's
    Civil Statutes, extends the provisions of Article 2806 to include
    consolidationof rural high school districts with independent
    school districts. Article 2815, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides
    that consolidateddistricts %ay, in the same manner provided for
    their consolidation,be dissolved and the districts included there-
    in restored to their original status, * * *v; but it further pro-
    vides that "no election for the dissolutionof said consolidated
    districts shall be held until three (3) years have elapsed after
    the date of the election at which such districts were consolidated.'
    Article 2767, Vernon's Civil Statutes, the statutory
    authority invoked by the petition which has been presented to the
    County Judge of Fannin County, reads in part as follows:
    "Any independent school district incorporated
    for free school purposes under the laws of Texas,
    may be abolished in the manner herein provided:
    "The County Judge of any county in which any
    independent school district or part thereof is
    situated,upon presentationof a petition in
    writing signed by ten per cent (10s) of the
    qualified voters reaiding in such independent
    school district shall order an election for
    such purpose , * * 4."
    - 2859-
    ..
    Hon. J. W.   Edgar, page 3 (C-592)
    This statute does not impose any restriction on the time; in
    relation to the last preceding change in the composition,organi-
    zation or nature of the district, at which an election for
    abolishmentmay be held.
    There are several marked differencesbetween the pro-
    oedure for dissolution of a district under Article 2815 and that
    for abolishmentunder Article 2767. For example, Article 2815
    requires that the election be initiatedby a petition of twenty
    or a majority of the voters of each of the formerly existing
    districts which compose the consolidateddistrict, and for ef-
    fectuation of the dissolution it requires a majority vote in
    favor of dissolution in each of the formerly exlsting'districts.
    ConsolidatedCommon School Dist! No. 5 V, Wood, 
    112 S.W.2d 231
     (Tex.Clv.App.1937 , error di .     Upon dissolution,each of
    the component former districts 1; restored to its original status,
    by express p~ovislon of Article 2815. On the other hand, Article
    2767 requires a petition of ten per cent of the voters residing
    in the district, without regard to their geographicaldistribution,
    and abolishment Is effectuatedupon a favorable vote of a majority
    of the voters participatingin the election, again without regard
    to their geographicaldistribution. After abolishment, the county
    board of school trustees is invested with the power conferred by
    Article 2681, Vernon's Civil Statutes, to order whatever disposition
    it sees fit of the territory within the abolished district. Att'y
    Gen. Op. V-1083 (1950).
    However, the two procedures have in common that each
    calls for a determinationof the issue by an election initiated
    by a petition of voters, and upon a favorable vote each results
    in termination of the district's existence.
    Without passing on whether the procedure in Article
    2767 could be used as a method for terminating the existence of
    a consolidateddistrict after the lapse of three years from the
    date of consolidation,we are firmly of the opinion that it may
    not be used during this three-year period where the district's
    status has remained unchanged since the date of a consolidation
    election held pursuant to Article 2806.
    Where there is a conflict or a repugnancy between a
    general provision of law and a provision relating to a specific
    matter, the specific provision controls and supersedesthe general
    provision with respect to the matter embraced in the specific
    statute. Cole v. State, 
    106 Tex. 472
    , 
    170 S.W. 10
    6 (1 14);
    Townsend v. Terre11   If8 Tex. 463, 1.6S.W.2d 1063 ?19293 ; Wallum
    V. Texas,Liquor  Co&o1   Board, 
    166 S.W.2d 175
    (Tex.Civ.ApDm,
    error ref.); Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. City of Dallas, 
    282 S.W.2d 723
    (Tex.Civ.App.1955; affirmed 
    150 Tex. 3b
    , 291 S.W.2d
    -2860-
    ,.   -
    Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 4 (C-592)
    693).
    As we view it, the three-yearwaiting period provided
    in Article 2815 was intended to require that the consolidation
    be given a minimum trial period of three years before it could
    be nullified by the will of the voters at an election initiated
    by a voters' petition. To permit abolishmentwithin this period
    by an election held under Article 2767 creates a conflict between
    the two statutes in permitting accomplishmentby indirection
    what Article 2815 plainly was intended to prevent. Accordingly,
    It is our opinion that your first question should be answered in
    the negative. It therefore becomes unnecessary to answer your
    second question.
    SUMMARY
    An election for abolishmentof a consolidated
    independent school district may not be called under
    Article 2767, V.C.S., within three years after the
    consolidationelection held pursuant to Article
    2806, V.C.S., where no change has been made in the
    status of the district subsequentto the consolida-
    tion election, because the election for abolishment
    would be repugnant to the provision in Article 2815,
    V.C.S..,prohibiting the holding of an election for
    dissolution of a consolidateddistrict until three
    years after the consolidationelection, and the
    specific provision of Article 2815 controls over
    the general provision of Article 2767.
    Very truly yours,
    WAGGONER CARR
    Attorney General
    By:             %I   7v4
    MKWrra:mkh                       Assistant
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman
    John Reeves
    Alan Minter
    Ralph Rash
    Harold Kennedy
    APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    BY: T. B. Wright
    -2861-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-592

Judges: Waggoner Carr

Filed Date: 7/2/1966

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017