-
Title
-
EWP 2-1 Yr 1951 Authority of School Board to Use Surplus Funds.pdf
-
Identifier
-
ef3e410973f0226a5159672eafad3128
-
e35ca766681036adc6a7426e87c09766
-
430d4292820e43e3ff0e178530502ad3
-
Is Version Of
-
EWP_2-1_Yr_1951_Authority_of_School_Board_to_Use_Surplus_Funds.pdf
-
Is Part Of
-
Petitions
-
Date Created
-
2021-11-21 14:48:52 +0000
-
12/28/03
-
Format
-
pdf
-
Source
-
/Volumes/Elements/EWP Files/source/Ingest One/2 Petitions Plans School Board and Districts/2-1_Superintendent_Memos/2-1_Yr_1951
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP Files/OCR/Petitions/2-1_School_Board/2-2_Yr_1951/EWP_2-1_Yr_1951_Authority_of_School_Board_to_Use_Surplus_Funds_ocr.pdf
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP Files/OCR/Petitions/2-1_Superintendent_Memos/2-1_Yr_1951/EWP_2-1_Yr_1951_Authority_of_School_Board_to_Use_Surplus_Funds_ocr.pdf
-
Publisher
-
Digitized by: Edwin Washington Project
-
extracted text
-
Ren.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RICHMOND
2. Harrison
April
20,
November 14, 1951
Honorable Stirling M. Harrison
Commonwealth's Attorney for Loudoun County
Leesburg
Virginia
My dear Mr. Harrison:
You have requested my opinion concerning
a question raised by the Division Superintendent of Schools
for Loudoun County in his letter to you of November 5th.
quote as follows from his letter
"The question has arisen: Does the
School Board of Loudoun County have the legal
right to use surplus funds for the current fiscal year to pay an ar chi te et for preliminary
work on plans for a new central high school?'
"The essential facts are:
On March 5, 1951 on request of
the school board the county board of supervisors approved an application for a literary loan and an application for the use of
Sts to School Construction Funds for a new
central high s chool. The literary loan application was approved by the State Board
of Education on May 24, 1951.
2.
On April 5, 1951 the school board
adopted a resolution requesting the board of
supervisors to appropriate $15,000 for purchase of a site for the new high school.
I
Hon. Stirling M. Harrison
Harrison
-2-
November 14, 1951
14,
3. On April 10, 1951 the board of supervisors appropriated out of its surplus funds
$15,000 for the purchase of the site.
4. On April 11, 1951 the school board accepted a proposal of the owner to sell approximately 30 acres of land for the high school
site.
5. In the preparation of the school budgets for 1950-51 and 1951-52 the costs for architects fees were not in any case listed separately, but considered as part of the cost
of new buildings, which item was included in
each budget. In the supplementary explanations
for the 1951-52 budget no mention was made of
the new high school building.
"Particular reference is made to Sections
22-72 and 22-122 of the Code. The latter actions
seem to us to define the meaning of 'items' to which
reference is made in Section 22-72.
"Attention is also called to a Virginia Court
decision 182 Va. 266, 28 S. E. (2nd) 698, which probably most nearly covers our question."
The fact that the Board of Supervisors has already approved a loan from the Literary Fund for the construction of
the new central high school and has already appropriated $15,000
out of surplus county funds for the purchase of thirty acres of
land for the new high school site cannot, in my opinion, be construed as approving the use of surplus school funds for the payment of an architect's fee for preliminary plans for the new central high school. Such action on the part of the Board of Supervisors must necessarily be considered as being made independently
of approval of the school budget for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1951.
I have before me the a bove mentioned budget, the pertinent
part of which reads as follows:
-3-
Hon. Stirling M. Harrison
November 14, 1951
SUMMARY OF SCHOOL BUDGET
1951-52
$67,000
Capital Outlays - New Buildings
SYNOPSIS OF SCHOOL BUDGET
1951-52
$67,000
New Buildings
DETAILS OF SCHOOL BUDGET
1951-52
$67,000
New Buildings
1951-52
Arcola Addition
$67,000
The above information concerning expenditures for
new buildings is quoted from pages 2, 5 and 18 of the document
entitled "LOUDOUN COUNTY SCHOOL BUDGET - Fiscal Year Beginning
July 1, 1951" and such document is so named by the Division
Superintendent in his letter of transmittal to the Board of Supervisors. Under these circumstances it is my opinion that the
"DETAILS OF SCHOOL BUDGET" is an integral part of the school
budget for the Fiscal year beginning July 1, 1951, and that it
cannot now be treated simply as "supplementary explanations".
Therefore, since the school budget, as approved by
the Board of Supervisors, did not include funds for a new central high school, I am of the opinion that the School Board has
no legal right to use surplus school funds for the purposes set
forth in the Division Superintendent's letter without first obtaining the approval of the Board of Supervisors.
Hon. Stirling M. Harrison
-4-
November 14, 1951
The conclusion reached by me follows former opinions
of this office which deal with the interpretation of sections
22-72 and 22-122 of the Code. For your information I quote as
follows from my opinion addressed to the Honorable Robert
Bolling Lambeth, Commonwealth's Attorney for Bedford County,
under date of June 12, 1950:
"Section 22-72 of the Code provides that
county school boards may incur only such costs
and expenses as are provided in its budget unless they first secure the consent of the tax
levying body,
"of course, if the school budget did hot include any item for capital expenditures, Section
22-72 referred to a (bove would prohibit the expenditures of funds therefor until the approval of
the tax levying body is first secured, at which
time the Board of Supervisors can require that
the specific school projects be itemised. Likewise, if the school budget named certain projects,
the funds can be used only for the one specified
unless the approval of the Board of Supervisors is
first secured.
"section 22-122, which deals with the preparation of school budgets, provides that the 'estimate so made shall clearly show all necessary details in order that the governing body and the taxpayers of the county or of the city may be well in formed as to every item of the estimate's Under
the section, the Board of Supervisors could have
required a more detailed account of the capital expenditures planned at the time the school budget
was submitted for approval, but, if it did not and
instead approved a sum for that general purpose, it
is my opinion that the school board may expend the
funds provided on such capital improvement projects
as it deems most appropriate."
The opinion quoted above follows the decisions of the
Supreme Court of Appeals in the cases of Scott County School Boar d
V. Board of Supervisors, 169 Va. 213, and Board of Supervisors V.
County School Board, 182 Va. 266. In the first mentioned case
-
Type
-
OCR
