2002-09-24 City Council Travel Review Committee Meeting-no official minutes

Browse Search

e e Page 2 Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. MW-93 The school board generally has discretion to determine whether a particular payment is 'necessary in the conduct of the public scho,ols.' However, in our opinion the board may not as a matter of law pay the expenses of persons who have no responsibilities or duties to perform for the board and whose connection with public school matters is based solely on their relationship of blood, marriage, or frienship with a board member. You have submitted no facts indicating that the presence of a school board memberfs spouse, relative or other associate at a convention will serve school purposes. The presence of these persons at a convention appears to be purely social. Although a spouse's presence at a convention may facilitate personal contact among administrators and thus contribute in some small way to school purposes, we believe the benefit accruing to the school district is too minimal to sustain the expenditure. Cf. Warwick v. United states, 236 F. Supp. 761 (E.D. Va. 1964) (deductibility from federal income tax return of a wife's travel expenses). We note that Attorney General Opinion H-1089' (1977) concluded that spouses of public officials could in some cases receive free transportation on state-owned aircraft where space is available. Whether this benefit could be provided legally depended in part on the nature of the office, on the spouse's traditional role, and the spouse's connection with a particular trip. This opinion must be limited to its facts, and you have presented no facts and we are aware of none which would establish a public purpose served by the spouse's attendance at a convention. You next ask whether school board members who received payments for expenses incurred by non-members should be required to reimburse the school district. Where payment is made from public funds under mistake of law, the public body may seek reimbursement. City of Taylor v. Hodges, 186 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1945); Cameron County v. Fox, 2 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Cornm. App. 1928, jdgmt adopted). This provides an exception to the general rule that money paid under a mutual mistake of law may not be recovered. City of Taylor v. Hodges, supra; Gould v. City of El Paso, 440 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Civ. App.--El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Nunn-Warren Pub. Co. v. Hutchinson County, 45 S.W.2d 651 (Tex. ' Civ. App.--Amarillo 1932, writ ref'd). Compare County of Galveston v. Gorham, 49 Tex. 279 (1878); Stegall v. McLennan County, 144 S.W.2d 1111 (Tex. Civ. App.-- Waco 1940, writ dism. jdgmt cor.). Although the court in Hayward v. City of Corpus Christi, 195 S.W.2d 995 (Tex. Civ. App.--Waco 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.) stated in dicta that interest payments made by a city under mistake of law could not be recovered, its decision actually rested on the ground that the statute of limitations barred recovery. Thus, the schoo~ board has authority to require reimbursement of travel expenses illegally paid. See also Educ. Code ~ 23.26(a) (trustees may sue and be sued). *10734 As a general rule, school trustees have broad powers of control and management over the school district, and the courts will not interfere unless a clear abuse of power and discretion appears. Nichols v. Aldine Ind. School Dist., 356 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston 1962, no writ): Kissick v. Garland Ind. School Dist., 330 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Where the school board members themselves have received Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original u.s. Govt. works