Attorney General Opinion WW-0892

. . EA'ITORNEY GENERAL OF’ %-EXAS AUSTIN ~~.‘lkxas WILL WILSON A-ORNEY GBNE-I. July 22, 1960 Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion NO. W-892 Commissioner of Education Austin, Texas Re: May a junior college district legally expend local maintenance funds when available for estab- lishment and operation of a television station facil- ity (to be located within or without the dlstrlct) as a cooperative educational project with other public Dear Dr. Edgar: educational entities. We are in receipt of your letter requesting our opinion on certain questions concerning the legality of an educational television station. Your questions read as follows: I'May a junior college district legally expend local maintenanc,e funds when available: "1 . For establishment and operation of a television station facility (to be located within or without the district) as a coopera- tive educational project with other public educational entities? "2 . For the costs of providing or ser- vicing the district with educational tele- vision broadcasts from a television channel or station? “3. And/or for the costs of procurement from and televising by a certain television station of educational programs or services designated by the District for augmentation of Its educational program?" . . - Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 2 (W-892) The authorized expenditures for which local main- tenance funds may be used are set out in Article 2827, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which reads in part as follows: "The public free school funds shall not be expended except for the following purposes: "2. Local school funds from district taxes, tuition fees of pupils not entitled to free tuition and other local sources may be used for the purposes enumerated for State and county funds and for purchasing appliances and supplies, for the payment of insurance premiums, janitors and other em- ployees, for buying school sites, buying, building and repairing and renting school houses, and for other purposes necessary in the conduct of the public schools to be determined by the board of trustees . . ." Article 2827 quoted above is applicable to Junior College Districts by virtue of Article 2815h, Section 5, Vernon's Civil Statutes, which reads as follows: "The Board of Trustees of Junior Col- lege Districts shall be governed in the establishment, management and control of the Junior College by the General Law governing the establishment, management and control of Independent School Districts insofar as the General Law is applicable." Section 20 of Article 2815h, Vernon!s Civil Statutes, reads in part as follows: Said Board of Trustees shall . . . &l is such they shall constitute a body corporate by the name of the Junior College District , State of Texas, and in that name may acquire and hold real and personal property, sue and be sued, and may receive bequests and donations, or other moneys or funds coming legally into their hands, and may perform other acts for the promotion of education in said district." - - Honorabie J. W. Edgar, Page 3 (w-892) It is our opinion tion quoted above does poses for which junior but rather it pertains that the language of this Sec- not expand or enlarge the pur- college funds may be expended only to the authority of the trustees to perform acts as a corporate body in the name of the junior college, the authorization for the particular acts being elsewhere in the statutes. We believe that the answer to your first question is controlled by Attorney Gneral's Opinion O-4573 (1942), a copy of which is attached hereto, and the authorities cited therein, which hold that a junior college district may legally expend local maintenance funds for erection of a school building provided that the funds used are surplus funds and that a deficiency debt is not thereby created against the district. This raises the question of whether or not a television station facility Is a school building. In Adams v. Miles, 300 S.W. 211 (1927), the Court of Civil Appeals in an opinion affirmed by the Commis- sion of Appeals in 41 S.W. 2d 21 said the following: "We are of the opinion tha~t under the powers granted common school district trustees by the statutes above referred to Sec. .A 1, Art. VII, Tex. Coast., Arts. 274 9 2749, 2827, R.C.S.j, those trustees have the authority,to be reasonably exer- cised within their discretio:n, to appropriate the surplus funds in their hands to the constructi:X! of a 'school- house', such as that proposed here, to be used by them In providing "living quarters for the teachers of sala school, and fo? such other purposes as to the trustees of said district may seem prop:r or necessary In conducting said school', In Mosely v. City of Dallas, 17 S.W. 2d 36 (Corn. App,), the Court recogn:zedthat the board of trustees may exercise considerable discretion as to the purposes for which the public free school funds may be expended due to the language of Article 2827. The case of Youn Linwood School District No. 17, 97 saw. 2d 627, iiiYo* _: the que&ion of whether or not a gymnasium building with rooms for home economics and Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 4 (W-892) vocational agriculture was a school building under a statute authorizing the issuance bonds for building and equipping school buildings. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that It was a school building and the following language Is from their opinion: we think the words ‘school bulld- lngs’, ‘ai ised therein, mean any such school dlatrict bulldlng as may be needful, necessary, or proper for the conduct of a school in said district. ” Article 2815r-1 specifically authorizes the several governing boards of the Junior Colleges to enter into contracts with munlclpalltles and school districts for the joint construction of buildings and other structures, In vlew of the foregoing authorltlea It ia our opinion that a junior aollege dietriot may legally expend local maintenanoe funds when avallable for eetabllshment and operation of a tslevlaion station faallity as a oooperative educational project with other public eduoa- tional entltise where the trusteee determine suoh a pro- jeot to bo neoeaaary in the oonduot of the sohool. - - Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 5 (w-892) I! . . . and the Legislature may au.thorlse an additional ad valorem tax to be levied and collected within all school districts hereto- fore formed or hereafter formed, for the fur- ther maintenance of public free schools, and for the erection and e ulpment of school build- ings therein; . . .' 4 Emphasis added) From the authorities cited above we conclude that the question of whether or not a junior college district may expend local maintenance funds when available for either the cost of providing or servicing the district with educational television or for the costs of educa- tional programs or services for the augmentation of its educational program is a questlon that rests within the sound discretion of the trustees of said district. Questions 2 and 3 are, therefore, answered in the affirm- ative, provided that the trustees in the exercise of their discretion determine that such activities are necessary in the conduct of the school. SUMMARY A junior college district may legally expend local maintenance funds when available for establishment and opera- ticn of a television station facility (located within the district) as a cooperative educational project with other public educational entitles, pro- vided the trustees of the district in the exercise of their discretion determine such a project to be necessary In the con- duct of the school, and provided further that only surplus funds are used and a deficiency debt is not thereby created against the district. Such funds may also be legally expended for the costs of providing the district with educational television broadcasts or for the procure- ment and televising of programs to augment Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 6 (w-892) the district's program where the trustees in the exercise of their discretion determine these activi- ties to be necessary in the con- duct of the school. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas By k%J&ftLdJ Robert A. Rowland Assistant RAR:mm APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Martin DeStefano Riley Eugene Fletcher Howard Mays John C. Phillips REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Leonard Passmore