Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1951 )

AUHTIN 11.Txcxas
PRICE DANIEL
.mTORNEY OENERAL
:
July 31, 1951
Eon. WIlllam L. Taylor op&on Ro. i-1224
Prosecuting Atiiornej
Harrison County Re: Validity of a school
Marshall, Texas superintendent ‘4 con-
tract with a rural
high school district
under the clrcumetancee
Dear Sir: related.
We refer to your requeet for an opinion of this
office concerning the va~ldltg or existence of a school
superintendent’s contract with a rural high school dis-
trict. You state the circumstances in connection there-
with, in substance, as follower
On March 9, 1951, the trustees of then
Hallsvllle Rural High School District met
aa a group an& voted at that board meeting
to re-elect its superintendent for a two-
year pe~lod. The boar& minutes ror that
date reflect sqch action.
According’ to the echo01 superintendent,
he, at that board meeting, accepted by ex-
pressing hle appreciation for their consid-
eration and thanked them for renewlng his
contract. On March 12, the superintendent
addressed a letter to the president of the
board In vhlch he accepted the job of euper-
intendency tendered to him by the action of
the board on March 9.
*On March 19, the board again held a
called meeting and voted not to.elect teach-
ers, Including the superintendent, until
after the approaching trustee election and
the newly elected trusteea took office, and
voted to cancel the agreement for a tvo-year
contract for the superintendent. Trustee
elections were held on April 7, 1951. Art.
2774a, Sec. 4, V.C.S.
Hon. William L. Taylor, page 2 (V-1225)
The preclre queetlon Involved herein lrr
Can and doe8 there exlat a valid oral
contract for the school yearn 1951-1952 and
1952-1953 between the Superintendent and the
Board of Trustees of the Rallsoille Rural
High School DIstrlot under the submitted
facts and laws applicable thereto?
Article 2922k, V.C.S., ppovldes In pa&r
“All rural high schools within a rural
high school district herein provided for
shall be under the immediate control of the
board of school trustees ror such rural high
schools, ana such board Of school trustee8
shall be under the control an6 supervision
of the county superintendent and county boar&
of school trueteerr, and shall be subSect tQ
the same Drovialons of law and restrictloa~
that common schools are now subject to, , . .e
Dmphesls added.)
Accordlne to Bulletin 512 of the Texas Educa-
tion Agency for 1950-1951, the Hallevllle Rural High
School District Is cl.a8slfled as a common school dfs-
trict . Art. 2922b, V.C.S. By virtue of Article 292?k,
It Is subject to the saw provlslons of law and restric-
tions that common schools are nou subject .
Articles 2749, 2750, 2750a-1, ana 2693, V.C.S.,
insofar as pertinent to teacher contract matterr of CODL-
man school dlstrS.cts, apply also to rural high who01 dls-
trlcts classified as common echo?1 districts. Att’y Cen.
op. O-7009 (1946).
Article 2749 provides in part%
‘Said trustees fif a common school Qlr-
trlct shall have the menagement ancl oontrol
of t d e public schools . . . They ahall have
the power to emplo . . . tOaOh8r#; , . .
They shall contrac I with teaoherr and manage
and supervise the sohools, subject to the
ruler and regul.etlona of the county and Stete
Superintendents; they shall approve al.1 claims
egainet school funds of their district; pro-
vided, that the trustees, In making contracts
with teachers, shall not create a defloIenoy
debt against the dlstrlet .”
:
Hon. Wllllam L. Tmylor, page 3 (v-1225 j
‘Article 2750 pwiUes in part: :
“Tru&eeti of a district shall make oon-
tracts with teachers to teach the public
schoole of their dlstrlbt, but the’compen-
satlon to a teacher, under a written cm-
tract ao made, shell be approved by the
county superintendent before the school Is
te.ught, stating that the teacher will teach
such schools for the time ana money specified
in the contract. . . .*
Article 275O?i-1 provides in part:
‘Trustees of any CommonSchool Mstrlct
shall have authority to make contracts
ioi ii period of time not in exceee of two (2)
geaps with principals, superintendents, and
teachers of raid CommonSchool Districts . , .
provided that dnch contracts shall be approved
by the County Superintendent. No contract may
be signed by the Trustees of CommonSchool Dls-
tricts . . . until the newly elected trustee
or trustees have qualified and taken oath of
office .”
Article 2593 provides In part:
“The county superintendent shall approve
all vouchers legally drawn against the school
fund pf hie c0unt.y. He shall examine all the
b’oiit$acta ‘b&tVe&n tse trustees and teachers of
his county, and if, in his judgment, such con-
tracts are proper, he shall, approve the same:
* povlded, that In considering any contract be-
tween a teacher and trustees he shall be au-
thorized to consider the amount of salary
promised to the teacher. . . .I
Under these statutes, written contracts of em-
ployment between a common school district and its teach-
ore muet be approved by the county superintendent. Hu-
morous cases have held that a contract not approved by .’
the county superintendent cannot furnish the basis for
an action on the contract Itself, although the parties
might havi+ recourse to an action to compel approval of
the written contract in a proper case. Thomas v. Taylor,
163 S.W. 129 (Tex.Clv.App. 1914, error ref’. J;
Potter county 177 S.W. 210 (T~x.C~V.APP.
V. Buna Indep&dent School Dlst., 46 S.W.2d
Hon. William L. Taylor, page 4 (V-1225)
App. 1932) ; Mill
App. 1933, error
8 accrue to
either party before a foz~mal written contract is exe-
cutea.
In White v, Porter, 78 S.W.2d 287, 290, 291
iT;;‘y;,v .-Ai;ip;a9341 all th e trustees of a cornnon ochoel
0; April 26, 1933, Into an agree-at
in writing to emiloy Miss Jones as a teether. The con-
tract was TO be signed on Msy 1, 1933. No contract was
actually signed with Miss Jones by the trustees on that
date or any other time. Subsequently, on June 25, 1933,
two of the trustees (a majority) signed a written cm-
tract with Miss White to teach the school for the 19330
1934 term on the contract form prescrslbed by the lrchool
authorities of Texas, and regular In Its terms. It was
filed with the county superintendent on August 31, 1933,
for his approval. The county superintendent, being of
the opinion that the agreement of April 26 was legally
sufficient to constitute a contract with Nies Jones to
teach school and it being prior In point of time to Mise
White’s contract, disapproved Miss White’s contract. Af-
ter proper appeal through the school authorities on the
matter, Miss White ln this action sued to mandamus the
county superintendent to approve her contract. Peremp-
tory mandamuswas awarded. The court in its opinion
stated:
“The agreement ln question, however,
does not purport to be a completed contract
of employment with Miss Jones. . . . It
could have no more force than the mere state-
ment of Intention on the part of the trustees
to do something In the future respecting thelr ..
official duties. :. . . lo contract was ac-
tually signed with Miss Jones.
I The two trustees on June 26, 1933,
sIgued’a’<ten contract with Mlas Wblte to
teach in the school fop the 1933-34 term.
The mode of employing teachers by trustees Af’ l
~onuimn school dletrlcts , as dletlnguishable
from Independent dlstplcts, is prescribed by
article 2750, R.S., which provldess gTruetee8
of a district shall make contracts with teach-
ers to teach the public schools of their dls-
tplct, but the compensation to a teacher, under
Hon. wlliiam L. Taylor, page 5 (V-1225)
a written contract So made, shall be approved
by the county superintendent before the school
ia taught, stating that the teacher will teach .’
such school for the time and money specified
in the contract.’
“The election or employment of a teacher
in board meeting, regular or special, is not
prescribed by the statute as an essential pre-
requisite to the validity of the written con-
tract between the trustees of a common school
district and a teacher to teach the school.
Its only essential Is that it shall be made by
the trustees with the teacher In writing, stat-
ing that the teacher will teach such school for
the time and money speclfled in the contract.’
Under the facts submitted for consideration in
the matter herein, not only is there absent approval or
disapproval of the county superintendent on the claimed
contract, but th&re is absent also an.executed written
contract between the district superintendent (for the
scholastic years I.951-1959 and 1952-1953) and the trus-
tees of the Hallsville School District. We are of the
opinion that there cannot exist an enforclble valid
teacher contract binding a conrmon school district un-
less the same be In vrltlng and properly signed by Its
board of trustees. A formal contract In miting is re-
quired by the. above quoted statutes, and Is further
necessitated by such statutes as require action of the
county superintendent In such matters. White v. Porter,
In short, an oral teacher contract of a common
SC 001 district
9F’ or an alleged teacher contract based
alone on agreements or elections of its board of trus-
tees evidenced by Its minutes or ln letters appertain-
ing thereto is not enforclble in our courts. But see
Attorney Generalvs Opinion O-2162 (1940) concerning
teacher contracts of independent echool districts.
Accordingly, It is our opinion that, under the
facts submitted, there exists no valid contract between
the trustees of the Hallsvllle Rural High School Dis-
trict and its present superintendent for the 1951-1952
or 1952-195f, school years, there being no formal con-
tract in altlng as required by Articles 27'49, 2750,
275Oa-1, and 2693, V.C.S., upon which the county super-
intendent must act.
In view of our conclusion that no valid contract
was made, it is unnecessary to consider vhether the board
Haor. Vllllam L. Taylor, page 6 (v-li25)
of trustees could have entered into a binding contract
befwe the trustees elected on. _ APr1.l 7,. 951: had-taken
BUt in thl8 COnB8CtloJI, Bee Att'y Ifen. Vp.
Kfig- (19501.
Articles ?749, 2750, 27506-1, and 2693,
V.C.S., appertaining to employment contracts
of teachers and superintendenta of cemrnon
school districts, Including rural high school
districts classified aa common, require the
signing of a formal contract in writing, which
i muat be submitted to the county school auper-
lntendent for approval. Until the statutory
requirement of an executed written sgreement
Is met, there exists no contract.
Yours very truly.
APPRO?%D%
PRICE UiIKEL
J, C. Davis, Jr. Attorney (teneral
County Pffairs Division
Jesse P . Luton, Jr. /ftxsw%&
Reviewing Assistant Chester E. Ollison
Charles D. Mathews b--L/ I h&
First Assistant
Bruce W. Bryant
BUB;CEO:mw Assistants