Selected issues regarding the use of school funds

Citation preview

SELECTED ISSUES REGARDING THE USE OP SCHOOL FUNDS

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Education

by Franklin J # Hart June 1942

UMI Number: EP54220

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publishing

UMI EP54220 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346

T h is thesis, w r it t e n u n d e r the d ir e c t io n o f the ^ 3 * $ CL C h a ir m a n o f the ca n d id a te ’ s G u id a n c e C o m m itte e a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l m em bers o f the C o m m itte e , has been p resen ted to a n d accepted by the F a c u lt y o f the S c h o o l o f E d u c a t io n o f T h e U n iv e r s it y o f S o u th e rn C a l i f o r n i a in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the r e q u ire m e n ts f o r the degree o f M a s t e r o f Science in E d u c a tio n .

.........

Dean Guidance Com m ittee

Irving R. Melbo C hairm an

E. E. Wagner

Nila B. Smith

TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER

I.

PAGE

THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OP TERMS USED . . .

1

The problem • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • •

1

Statement of the problem. . . . . . . . . .

1

Importance of the study . . • • • • • . • •

1

Scope of the investigation. • • • • • . . .

2

Definition of terms used. . . . . . . . . . .

3

Attorney General. • • • • . . . • • • • • •

3

District Attorney • • . • • • • • • • • • .

3

Administrator . . . . .

........

.. .. .

4

Issues.

4

Opinion ........

. . . • • • • . • • • • •

J

g

u

d

Decision.

m

e

n

4 t

.......................

Use of school

funds

5 5

Organization of theremainder of the thesis . II*

4

5

PREVIOUS STUDIES AND METHOD OF PROCEDURE. . . .

6

Previous studies. . • • • . • • • • • • • • •

6

.General studies • Specific studies. . ........

. . . . . . .

6

. . . . . . .

7

Method of procedure.................

11

Filing system in the Attorney General*s office. • •

........

Card index file

• • • • • • • • • • *

12

............... • • • •

12

iv CHAPTER

III.

PAGE

Index card* • • • . • • • . . • • • • • • •

14

Bound opinions* • • « • • • • • • • • • * •

14

COUNTY SCHOOL FUNDS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. . .

16

Unapportioned county school fund. • • « • » •

16

Traveling expenses of school trustees . . •

16

Unapportioned county elementary school fund .

17

Disposition of fines resulting from Agriculture Code* • • • • . • • « « • • •

18

Purchase of a school bus. . * . . . . . . .

19

Purchase of a motion picture projector. . .

19

Purchase of supplementary textbooks . . . .

20

Construction of emergency schools . . . . .

21

County elementary school supervision fund . .

22

County superintendent not a supervisor. . .

22

Employment and compensation of supervisors

IV.

of instruction. • • . • • • . « • • • • •

23

Necessary expenditures. • • • • . . . • • .

23

Prohibited expenditures • • • • • • . • • .

24

Summary • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • . . • *

25

COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL FUNDS AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

27

County high school funds. • • • • • • • • • •

27

County high school tuition fund • • • • • •

27

Transfer of junior college tuition funds. .

30

Unapportioned county high school fund . . .

31

CHAPTER

PAGE

The transfer of funds . . . . . . . . . . . .

V.

33

Authority to transfer •

34

Definition of maintenance • • • • • . • • •

35

Accrual of taxes to a political subdivision

36

Transfer from unapportioned school funds. .

37

Repayment of fund • • • • • • . • • » • • •

38

Transfer to interest and sinking fund . . .

38

Summary « • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • .

39

GENERAL USES OP DISTRICT FUNDS. . . . . . . . .

40

State apportionment . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

Credit for apportionment of state funds when pupil unlawfully attends a school district. • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • •

40

Payment of junior high school tuition . . .

41

Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

Expenses of bond issues • • • • • • . • • •

42

Bond issue for 11teacher agen . . . . . . . .

43

Use of money received from bond issue . . .

44

Surplus money in building fund; . . . . . .

44

Special building fund

45

Accumulated funds . . . • • • • • « • • • •

45

........

46

Transfer of building and maintenance funds.

46

General fund. • • . • • • • • • . .

Cafeteria fund.

47

vi CHAPTER

PAGE

Depositing of funds « • • • • •

..........

47

Accumulated profits . . . . . .

..........

48

District budget . . • • • . « • . • • • . . .

49

General reserve

49

Budgetary limitations on expenditures . . .

51

Expenditures in excess of budget* ........

52

Sponsorship of Works Progress Administration.

53

Claims against districts....................

54

Contracts • * • • . • • • . « • • • • • • • •

55

Lease-purchase agreement....................

56

Authority of governing boards to purchase or lease equipment. . . . . . . . . . . .

56

“Lease-purchase11 agreement contract . . . .

57

Registration of school bus under “lease-

VI.

purchase” agreement . . . . . . . . . . .

59

Summ a r y...................................

60

SPECIAL USES OF DISTRICT FUNDS.............

.

62

Transportation to athletic contests and the like.............................

62

Purchase of uniforms for band and athletic teams

63

Purchase of uniforms for California high school c a d e t s ......... Employment of special lecturers • • • • • • •

65 67

vii CHAPTER

PAGE

Furnishing of eyeglasses# .

.

Fire fighting service . . . . . . .

........

Installation of electric power line . . . . .

67 68 68

Installation of electric lights on athletic field

.................................

70

Expending funds for patent. • • • • • • • • .

71

Construction and selling of a house "built toy vocational carpentry classes# • # • • • • •

72

Summary • • • • • • • , # # • • • • # # # • •

73

¥11. COLLECT IOH OF FEES.

..................

74

Shop fees • • • • • • • • • • • • • « • • • •

75

Student body dues

........ • • • •

75

Admission fees. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

76

Health service*

76

.........

The selling of books and apparatus. . . . . .

76

Sxunmer school fees. • • • • • • • • • • • • •

77

Incidental f e e s .............

77

Disposition of erroneous collections. . . . .

78

Summary

............. • • • • • • • • »

79

VIII. SALARIES.......... ...........................

80

County superintendent acting as secretary of county boardof education • • « . • • » . .

80

Traveling expenses of county superintendent of schools.

81

viii CHAPTER

PAGE

Funds from Alcoholic Beverage Control Act . .

82

Deputy county superintendent acting as clerk for county supervisors of instruction . . • County assessor • • • « • • • • •

•

County purchasing agent • • . • • • • • • • •

82 83 84

Traveling expenses of school district

IX.

employees attending conventions . . . . . .

85

Compensation of school hoard members. . . . .

86

Payment of teachers* salaries • • • • • • • •

87

Minimum salary.

88

Summary •

90

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........

92

Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • •

93

County school funds • « • • • • • • • • • •

93

District funds...................

94

Fees. • • • • • • • • • • • » • . • * . . •

96

Salaries. . . . . . . ........

. . . . . .

96

Recommendations • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . .

97

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................

100

LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE 1#

Example of Card in Index File of Attorney General • • • • « « • • • * • • • • • *

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS TJSED The financial program of any .school system determines to a large extent the success of that system*

It is es­

sential that the administrator know the legislation affect* ing school moneys, and the various Interpretations of this legislation by the courts and officials of the state in order to administer efficiently his school system* I.

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the problem. The purpose of this study is to present and evaluate certain issues that have arisen regarding the use.of school funds in the State of California* Importance of the study*

A knowledge of the correct

Interpretation of the various sections of the School Code is essential for every school administrator.

There Is present

in the code certain provisions which are ambiguous, or which are in conflict with other existing laws.

Because of this,

principals, superintendents or school boards often find that they are performing certain duties which are not in strict conformance with the law* In order that the provisions of the law may be cor­ rectly interpreted, there are district attorneys In the

separate counties, an attorney general for the state, and local and state courts.

It is to these sources that school­

men must go with their questions regarding the legality of their acts*

If the question is of such a nature as to affect

only one locality, the opinion of the district attorney of that county is sufficient.

An issue that has bearing on the

whole state is determined by the attorney general.

By fol­

lowing the opinions of these officers, administrators are reasonably safe in the performance of their duties.

The in­

terpretation that these men give to the statutes are consid­ ered as authority unless changed by a court decision. The success of the school system depends upon the efficient management of the many problems that may face a school administrator, and the handling of school moneys is one of the most difficult.

Although inefficiency may appear

in other departments of the school system, it is not so readily noticed by the public as Inefficient handling of funds.

The public is constantly watching the expenditure of

such funds and, hence, it is essential that schoolmen be cognizant of the law and conform to it.

Because of the great

importance that school funds play In the work of the adminis­ trator, it is the purpose of this study to be concerned with certain issues that have arisen in this field. Scope of the investigation. This investigation is a

series of case studies, and is limited to those cases involv­ ing administration of school finance in which the Attorney General of the State of California was requested to render an opinion*

All cases presented will be those which have come

to the attention of the attorney general between the dates of January 1, 1935 and December 31, 1941. There are many works dealing with school finance in its various phases; a considerable number dealing with the administration of school finance, and many more dealing with the interpretation of the courts in matters pertaining to school finance*

This study will attack the problem from a

different angle, dealing only with those issues that have become pertinent enough to require the attention of the at­ torney general, but have not been so serious as to reach the courts.

Court decisions or legislation will be referred to

only when they have a definite bearing upon the opinions. II.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

Attorney General.

The chief law officer of the state,

empowered to act in all litigation in which the law-executing power is a party, and to advise the supreme executive or law enforcement officials whenever required. District Attorney.

The chief law officer of the

county, empowered to act in all litigation in which the

4

law-executing power is a party, and to advise the law enforce­ ment officers of the county whenever required. Administrator.

A person who is authorized to manage,

execute or dispense the affairs of a school or a school dis­ trict* Issues*

A point or controversy on which the parties

take affirmative and negative positions; a presentation of alternatives betwe'en which to choose or decide*

In this

study it will be thought of as those matters in school fi­ nance which have become pertinent and need to be decided either in the affirmative or negative. Opinion.

A declaration, usually in writing, made by

the attorney general or one of his staff of what the law is, according to his judgment, on a statement of facts submitted to him. Judgment *

The conclusion of law upon faets found, or

admitted by the parties, or upon their default in the course of the suit. The language of judgments is not that "it is decreed,” or "resolved," by the court, but "it is considered" that the plaintiff recover his debt, damages, or possession, as the case may require*

This implies that the judgment is not so

much the decision of the court, as the sentence of the law,

pronounced and decreed by the court, after due deliberation and inquiry*^ Decision*

A judgment given by a competent tribunal*

The terms "opinions11 and "decisions" are often confounded, yet there is a wide difference between them*

A decision of

a court is its judgment, the opinion is the reason given for that judgment* Use of school funds*

Any manipulation or handling of

schooi moneys by school boards, superintendents or princi­ pals in conducting the affairs of the school system. III.

ORGANIZATION OP THE REMAINDER OF THE THESIS

A brief description of the literature and studies in the field will be included in Chapter II together with a detailed description of the method and procedure of the research performed for this study.

The opinions of the at­

torney general will be presented in Chapters III to VIII Inclusive*

The ninth chapter will be given over to a dis­

cussion of the findings, summary, and recommendations that have been developed throughout the body of the paper.

1 William Edward Baldwin, Bouvierfs Law Dictionary, Students Edition (New York: The Banks haw Publishing Company

I9 2 B T / p.""80U7-'~

CHAPTER II

PREVIOUS STUDIES AND METHOD OP PROCEDURE I.

PREVIOUS STUDIES

Many excellent studies have been written in the field of school finance, both of a general and specific nature# The general studies, for the most part, are intended to de­ velop an adequate background for the subject# General studies.

Essentials of School Law by Trassler^-

is an analysis of school law, illustrated and substantiated by the citation of school cases.

Newton Edwards

2

in his book

deals with the entire field of school administration as af­ fected by the courts.

He places special emphasis on the

fundamental principles underlying the relation of the state to education.

The principles of common law which are appli­

cable to practical problems of school organization and administration are systematically organized In such a way that they are easily understood by any reader.

Edwards

emphasizes that both the educational statesman and the practical school administrator should be familiar with the 1 Harry Raymond Trassler, Essentials of School Law (New York* Bruce Publishing Company, xy27), V7Q pp. 2 Newton Edwards, The Courts and the Public Schools (Chicago: University of Chicago £ress, lSF3$), SSI' pp.

fundamental principles of law governing the operation of our system of public education. A late book published in the field of school finanee is by Mort and Reusser.^

It contains an historical review

of public school finance in the United States as well as trends and needs of financial policies in the future.

It is

written so that the student will gain a unified conception of school, finance, and, in addition, a sense of where the foun­ dation is solid and enduring and where it is unstable and weak.

The various methods of operating school financial pro­

grams are discussed, using school systems throughout the nation as examples. The bulletin, California Schools, published by the State Department of Education contains a section entitled 11Interpretations of the Law.”This section sets

forth in

synopsis form all current legal Interpretations as developed by either the attorney general or court decisions. Specific studies.

Of the many specific studies in

this field a number have been valuable as being contributory to the general background for this study.

Among these are

3 Paul R. Mort and Walter C. Reusser, Public School Finance (Hew York: McOraw-Hill Book Company, 1941), 569 pp.

studies by George Carlton Harding,4 James Markham Linley,5 and Glenn D„ Casey*6

These three studies have gathered,

analyzed and interpreted the supreme court decisions for all the states from the years 1929 to 1936, so far as these de­ cisions affected school procedures*

Harding, Linley, and

Casey undertook this research in order to discover the trend of judicial interpretation and to point out what administra­ tive practices are dangerous or practicable in the light of such judgments.

The study by Casey went on to determine how

often trial court decisions are reversed, and the significance of these reversals* In 1928 Edwin David Cooke7 made a study to determine a basis for the distribution of school funds to procure 4 George Carlton Harding, "Supreme Court Decisions for 1929 to 1930 with Respect to Educational Administration," (unpublished Master*s thesis, The University of Southern California, Dos Angeles, 1932), 99 pp. 5 James Markham Linley, "Supreme Court Decisions for 1931, 1932, and 1933 with Respect to Educational Administra­ tion," (unpublished Master*s thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1934), 119 pp* 5 Glenn D. Casey, "Supreme Court Decisions for 1934. 1935, and 1936 with Respect to Educational Administration, (unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1937), 141 pp. 7 Edwin David Cooke, "The Basis of the Distribution of School Funds for the Equalization of the Financial Burden of Education of Southern California,” (unpublished Master*s thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1928), 123 pp.

better equalization of the financial burden among counties and districts of Southern California, in the support of an equal educational opportunity for all. A study by Stewart 8 Bates Raugh of the powers and limitations of school boards to enter into capital-outlay contracts was based upon an analysis of constitutional provisions, school laws, and court decisions* Two studies by Gerald Re inholt Peterson Evart Gilmore schools.

18

9

and Carl

dealt with the financing of athletics in high

Peterson discovered that some of the high school

boards furnished as much as twenty per cent of the funds to maintain interscholastic athletic programs while others did no subsidizing.

Gilmore’s study was made to discover the

methods used to finance athletics in the Northern California High School League and to determine the method or methods which have been producing the best results.

® Stewart Bates Raugh, ”The Powers and Limitations of School Boards to Enter into Capital-Outlay Contracts,” (unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1929), 63 pp. ® Gerald Reinholt Peterson, f,A Survey of Present Practices in Financing Athletics in the Small High Schools of California,” (unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1935), 81 pp. ^ Carl Evart Gilmore, 11A Comparative Study of the Methods of Financing Athletics in Small Union High Schools,11 (unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1934)# 91 pp.

10

In 1940 Zafon Hartman1'** prepared a thesis more closely related to this present study than any of the above men­ tioned*

The purpose of his study was:

To present and evaluate some of the actual cases in which practice has not followed law In matters pertain­ ing to the administration of school finance In order to help determine the following: 1. Are there accepted practices in good standing which do not strictly follow the law? 2. Are there practices which are being used but which should be considered dangerous and should be avoided by competent and efficient administrators? 3. What are the implications of such practices and the probable effect on the educational program? 4* Are there 'tricks of the trade,' so to speak, practices by the experienced and sought after by the Inexperienced?12 He found there were many practices performed by ad­ ministrators and school boards that were not within the law, but which on the whole had little, if any, effect on the edu­ cational program*

He was of the opinion that, taken as a

whole, school district funds have been administered as free from fraud as the best of the state's political subdivisions* He also found that the men and women who serve on governing boards are usually above question and are trusted regardless 11 Zafon A* Hartman, nVariations in Administrative Interpretation of Certain Legal Regulations Affecting School Finance,” (unpublished Master's thesis. The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1940), 125 pp. 12 Ibid., p. 1.

11

of whether they have followed the law or have been governed by their own discretion* II.

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

It was first necessary to become familiar with that part of the state law which governs the administration of school funds, and, second, to gain access to the files of the state’s attorney general so that his opinions could be reviewed.

These opinions then had to be classified under

appropriate headings.

The procedure of the investigation

was as follows: 1.

To study that part of the school law, as given in

the general laws and various codes that pertain to the admin­ istration of school funds in California.

2.

To visit the Los Angeles office of the attorney

general to ascertain If his opinions were on file and avail* able.

Permission to use the files was readily obtained, and

the staff was very helpful In demonstrating how to use the files and how to obtain the various opinions necessary for this study. 3*

To study the cards In the attorney general’s index

file, and to copy those cards which referred to opinions that in one manner or another dealt with administration or use of school funds.

Cards dated before January 1, 1935 were not

considered as It was thought that practically all issues

12

involving school funds would he included or referred to in opinions rendered after that date*

In a few instances refer­

ences were made to earlier opinions and these opinions were used when necessary for clarification of certain issues* 4*

To make a satisfactory outline for this study*

Although the cards were filed in various subheadings in the attorney general*s file, these headings were in many in­ stances very general, and could not be used as an outline for the rest of this study*

In order to make a satisfactory out­

line, It was decided to follow the index of the School Code as developed under the heading of Funds*

With this index in

mind, each card was reviewed and placed under the heading which it best fit in this index.

For those opinions which

did not fit this prearranged outline, new headings were created as needed* III.

FILING SYSTEM IN ATTORNEY GENERAL*S OFFICE

A short discussion on the use of the files and materi­ al available in this office may prove of value to some stu­ dent in the future.

It is, therefore, thought desirable to

give a brief resume of the methods used. Card index file*

A card index in the stenographic

room of the attorney general*s office contains a brief of

13

all the opinions of the attorney general or his deputies from 1920 to the present date*

The material is filed alpha­

betically by subject, the opinion being placed under the subject matter heading to which it is pertinent*

For exam­

ple, any opinion affecting or concerning schools will be found in the file under the subject, Schools* This file under Schools is thenfurther subdivided into a number of general headings such

as Districts, Funds,

School Code Sections, Apportionment of Moneys, Teachers, Pupils, etc*

An attempt has been made at cross-indexing

within each main subject heading*It was

found, however,

that the filing system was not trustworthy in regard to the subheadings under the subject, Schools* In order to make certain that all the opinions ren­ dered on school funds were obtained, it was necessary to review all cards under Districts, School Code, Apportionment of Funds, School Moneys, Unapportioned School Funds, and many more.

Approximately two thousand cards were reviewed

in order to obtain the eighty that were pertinent to this study* A search was next made to determine whether opinions affecting schools were filed in any section other than that of Schools.

No cards were found under other subjects, and

it can be said that the files are correct in so far as the main subject headings are concerned, but not necessarily so

14

in regard to subheadings under a main entry, f

Index card.

Each index card contained the subject

heading in the upper left-hand corner, and in the upper right-hand corner the number of the opinion.

In the middle

of the card was a brief statement of the text of the opin­ ion, followed by the name of the deputy rendering it, and the date it was completed.

Figure 1 is an example of such

an index card. Bound opinions.

The opinions were numbered consecu­

tively in the order in which they were rendered, and were bound in volumes, each volume containing one hundred opin­ ions, . These volumes were kept in a case adjacent to the index file so that they might be readily obtained.

The

opinion desired could be located within the bound volume by referring from the number on the upper right-hand corner of the index card to the same number appearing on the lower right-hand corner of each page of the opinion. Through this system of filing, once a subject head­ ing was known, it was relatively easy to locate all perti­ nent data connected with the subject, as well as to find the opinions themselves in the bound volumes.

SCHOOLS & SCHOOL DISTRICTS School funds Custody and withdrawal Cafeteria fund

NS 3317

School cafeterias should be operated on a cost basis and any excess profits should be reduced by selling food at lowered prices until the profits are reduced to nominal amount* SEE ALSO OPINION NS 2469

2/28/41

T.A. Westphal, Jr. 4406 FIGURE 1 EXAMPLE OF CARD IN INDEX FILE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

CHAPTER III

COUNTY SCHOOL FUNDS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS This chapter will deal with certain problems which have been presented to the attorney general regarding uses of county school funds.

It is divided into three sections:

(1) Unapportioned County School Fund, (2) Unapportioned County Elementary School Fund, and (3) County Elementary School Supervision Fund.

Each of these titles is further

subdivided so as to present more readily the problems that have been reviewed by the attorney general. I.

UNAPPORTIONED COUNTY SCHOOL FUND

Traveling expenses of school trustees.

The traveling

expenses incurred by members of boards of trustees of school districts in going to and returning from the annual trustees* meeting are payable from the unapportioned county school fund.*** Section 2.866 of the School Code provides as follows: The county superintendent shall draw his requi­ sition on the county auditor, who shall draw his warrant on the unapportioned county school fund to pay the expenses of holding the trustees* meeting. (Added by Stats. 1931, Chapter 728.)2 1 Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S#2851 to Laurence W. Carr, District Attorney, Shasta County, August 24, 1940. ^ School Code, State of California (Sacramento: California State Printing OfTIce, 1^39), Section 2.866, p. 102.

Although it has been held that the payment of the traveling expenses should be made according to this sec­ tion of the School Code, there is no provision in the pres­ ent School Code creating an unapportioned county school fund*

It is probable that warrants are being drawn upon

the unapportioned county elementary school fund or the un­ apportioned county secondary school fund, which were created in 1933 by Sehool Code Sections 4*160 to 4*190 and 4.250 to 4.252, and replaced a previous fund called the county school fund. If warrants to pay these expenses are drawn upon the county unapportioned elementary school fund or the unappor­ tioned county secondary school fund, the action may be open to question.

If such is the case, Section 2.866 of the

School Code should be made more specific by deleting the words f,unapportioned county sehool fund,” and substituting a wording which would allow withdrawal from either the un­ apportioned county elementary school fund or the unappor­ tioned county secondary school fund. II.

UNAPPORTIONED COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FUND

The unapportioned county elementary school fund is a fund created by Chapter II of Part II of Division I¥ of the School Code.

Under its provisions the county superintendent

18 may construct and maintain emergency elementary schools, or aid elementary school districts which need additional appro­ priations because of temporary emergency conditions, or because of the influx of children of migratory workers.

It

may also be used to insure persons under the Workman*s Com­ pensation Act who are employed by the county superintendent to give instruction in the schools of the county, to pay the salaries of county coordinators, and to purchase books for the county library. Disposition of fines resulting from Agriculture Code, Section 1039 of the Agriculture Code specifies that any fines resulting from the conviction of persons fraudulently sell­ ing commercial fertilizer shall be paid into the school fund of the county in which conviction is had.

It Is possible to

interpret this section to mean that such fines should be paid to the unapportioned county elementary school fund which was created in 1933# It is evident from Section 1039 of the Agriculture Gode that the fines provided therein should go to the support of the elementary schools of the county. If it should now be held that such fines should be placed in the *unapportioned county elementary school fund* of the county, the fines would still be used for the 3 support of the elementary schools of the county, ♦ . .

® U, S, Webb, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10460 to Dr, Alvin J, Cox, Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, California, June 30, 1936•

19

Purchase of a school bus*

The county superintendent

of schools may use moneys from the unapportioned county ele­ mentary school fund for the purchase of a school bus, if in his opinion an emergency condition exists.

An elementary

school district in Ventura County was faced with the neces­ sity of purchasing a new school bus because of the condem­ nation of their old bus by the State Highway Patrol*

Such

a situation could be considered as an emergency situation under Section 4.190 of the School Code, and the county superintendent could purchase a new bus for the district* Purchase of a motion picture projector*

4

Payment for

a motion picture projector, which the county superintendent of schools desires to purchase for the elementary schools of the county, may be made from either the county elementary supervision fund or the unapportioned county elementary school fund*

If money is taken from the supervision fund,

the projector must be used in the various schools of the county in connection with supervision of instruction.

The

unapportioned county elementary school fund is the ”more proper source for the payment of such a claim,11 especially if the purchase of such equipment is not included in the budget, as the unapportioned county elementary school fund

^ Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.1435 to M. Arthur Waite, District Attorney, Ventura County, February 9, 1939.

20

is not subject to the budget requirements of Section 3714 of 5 the Political Code* Purchase of supplementary textbooks, A county board of education may not enter into a contract with a publishing house to publish a supplementary text to be used in the ele­ mentary schools of the county, nor may they use money from the unapportioned county school fund to purchase such texts. The Contra Costa County Board of Education desired to supplement the elementary school history curriculum with the history of Contra Costa County,

They planned to enter into

a contract with a publishing house, and pay for the publish­ ing cost of such history books from the unapportioned county school fund.

The board claimed authority to enter into such

a contract and to expend moneys from said fund by virtue of the provisions of Section 3,681 of the School Code, which states that courses of study must conform to the minimum standards adopted by the State Curriculum Commission; Sec­ tion 3.692 of the School Code, which empowers county boards of education to prescribe and enforce a course of study; Sections 3.770 to 3.772 of the School Code inclusive, which provide that it is the duty of the county boards to prescribe a course of study in the elementary schools under their

® Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S,2858 to Burt W. Busch, District Attorney, Lake County, August 22, 1940*

21 jurisdiction, and Section 4*195 of the Schbol Code, which authorizes the county superintendent of schools, with the approval of the county board, to provide for the preparation and coordination of courses of study* Although the School Code does allow the county boards of education these various powers and duties, there is no section of the code which can be interpreted to authorize county boards to contract and pay money from the unappor­ tioned county elementary school fund for the publishing of any particular supplementary textbook.

If, however, such a

book were published and then adopted by the county board of education as a supplementary book to be used in a pres­ cribed course of study, the district would then be authorized Q

to make such a purchase from district funds♦ Construction of emergency schools *

Section 4.192 of

the School Code authorizes the county superintendent of schools to establish emergency schools for the children of migratory, laborers ttwhenever in his judgment it is necessary.,, This section, however, cannot be interpreted to permit the superintendent to erect permanent school build­ ings.

The erection of a permanent school building is the

duty of the duly elected trustees of a permanently organized

6 Earl Warren,.Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.3896 to Francis P. Healey, District Attorney, Contra Costa County, November 10, 1941+

22

district under the provisions of Section 6.40 of the School 7 Code. III.

COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SUPERVISION FUND

The county elementary school supervision fund has been created to aid in the supervision of instruction in school districts having less than three hundred units of average daily attendance.

Section 4.788 of the School Code, which

deals with the use ©f this fund, reads in part as follows: . . . for the payment of salaries and necessary expenses of supervisors to supervise instruction . . . , and for the furnishing of such clerical help, supplies and equipment to such supervisors as the county superintendent of schools may deem necessary.8 In an opinion rendered to the district attorney of Tulare County, the attorney general gave an interpretation ©f this section of the School Code, covering many of the possible uses to which this fund might be put, and certain uses which are restricted but often practiced. County superintendent not a supervisor.

Neither the

county superintendent, his regularly appointed deputy, nor the attendance officer employed by the board of education 7 Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.2571 to Laurence W. Carr, District Attorney, Shasta Gounty, May 16, 1940. 8 School Code, op, cit., Section 4.788, p. 256.

23

are supervisors, within the meaning of Section 4*788, even though they may be engaged in directing supervisors in their ,

supervisory work, and therefore their expenses may not be 9 charged against the supervision fund.

■

-

Employment and compensation of supervisors of instruc­ tion.

The county superintendent of schools may determine the

number of supervisors to be employed and the amount, time, and manner of their compensation.

He may also determine

whether the salaries of the supervisors are to be in full for all expenses incurred by them without additional allow­ ance for traveling expenses or whether they may be paid a i

salary plus an allowance for their expenses.

1

0

The super­

intendent may also make contracts with a school district for services rendered in supervising instruction in elementary school districts by employees of the district, who are properly certificated to do part-time supervisory work among the schools of the county.^ Necessary expenditures.

The term nnecessary expendi­

tures” in Section 4.788 of the School Code permits the superintendent of schools to provide suitable quarters for ^ U. S.Webb, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.974 to Walter C. Haight, District Attorney, Tulare County, April 27, 1938. Loc. cit. Loc. cit.

24

the supervisory staff, to pay for rent, heating, and light* ing, telephone service, furniture, stationary, printing supplies necessary for supervisory work, and items of a simi­ lar character•

In the purchasing of these supplies only the

actual expenses can he approved and not a lump sum allow12 anoe. Storage for automobiles and other property belong­ ing to the department would be a proper charge against the ^ 15 fund* Prohibited expenditures *

This fund cannot be used as

a revolving fund for the purchase of books either for sale or loan to schools.

Neither can it be used to purchase text­

books or to provide materials for the use of pupils, since such expenses are properly district expenses, and cannot be said to be expenses of supervision*

The payment of salaries

of teachers in emergency schools or in the regular schools of the county would not be a proper charge against the super­ vision fund*

The furnishing of the office of the superin­

tendent, the equipping of a room for the board of education, and the traveling expenses of the superintendent and clerical assistants for general work in his office are'charges against the general fund of the county, and not the county elementary 12 Loc. cit. 13 Loc. cit*

25 school supervision fund.1^ This fund may not be used to purchase refreshments for trustees* meetings or for teachers* meetings, or to em­ ploy any person to assist in serving refreshments to teachers at such meetings.

Also, it may not be used for the purchase

of calendars, Christmas tree decorations, automobile club memberships for the superintendent, and matters of like 15 character.4 . The expense of publication of a county school bulletin, which contains school news primarily, but little or no mate­ rial on supervision, is not a proper charge against this

fund.*’® The expenses of an "Annual County Elementary School Track Meet" sponsored by the supervisors of athletics can­ not be said to be incurred "exclusively for the payment of salaries and necessary expenses of supervision," and hence cannot be a proper charge against this fund. 17 IV.

SUMMARY

The traveling expenses of school trustees attending

^ Loc. cit. ^

Loc. cit. Loc. cit. Loc. cit.

26

the annual trustees* meeting are to he paid from the unap­ portioned county school fund, hut no such fund is in exist­ ence.

It is therefore desirable that further legislation be

provided to bring such a fund into being. The unapportioned county elementary school fund may be used to purchase a sehool bus in an emergency, construct emergency schools for the children of migratory laborers, but may not be used by county boards of education to publish supplementary textbooks.

Nor may the county superintendent

use the fund to provide.permanent school buildings. The county superintendent cannot be considered as a supervisor of instruction, although he may supervise super­ visors of instruction.

The employment and amount of com­

pensation of the supervisors of instruction is determined by the county superintendent.

The moneys of the elementary

supervisory fund may be used to provide quarters for the staff, and to pay for rent, heating, and lighting, telephone service, necessary supplies, and storage of equipment.

This

fund, however, may not be used to purchase books for schools, furnish offices for county boards of education, provide for refreshments, publish county school bulletins, or for ex­ penses of track meets or programs sponsored by the supervisory staff.

CHAPTER IV

COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL FUNDS AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS Chapter IV is a continuation of Chapter III, inasmuch as it will continue to deal with county school funds* Part I, County High School Funds, deals only with the high school tuition fund and the unapportioned county high school fund*

Part II, The Transfer of Funds, discusses and reviews

the difficulties that have arisen regarding the transfer of county funds for educational purposes. I.

COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL FUNDS

Very few questions have arisen regarding the use of county high school funds*

This is probably due to the fact

that they are rather small funds and have only limited uses* County high school tuition fund*

It has been the

practice for high school students residing in certain dis­ tricts of Imperial County to attend the high school in Yuma, Arizona, as permitted in the School Code*

Transportation

for these students was provided by their parents, who were compensated for this service by the county superintendent of schools*

Because of the hazardous conditions which developed

with this type of transportation, the county superintendent

28

desired to contract with a responsible bus owner, who would be able to maintain a definite schedule of service and suf­ ficient insurance against liability. At that time the section of the California School Code, which governed the transportation of pupils to schools in another state, read as follows: Section 3*337. The superintendent of schools of the county in California, on receiving a sworn state­ ment from the parent or guardian of a pupil attend­ ing such high school, showing the actual cost of transportation of said pupil, not exceeding ten dollars per month, shall draw an order in favor of such parent or guardian on the high school fund in payment of such transportation*1 The warrants for the payment of transportation were to be 2 drawn on the county high school tuition fund. The attorney general was of the opinion that the above section was not a limitation upon the authority or discretion of the superintendent of schools prohibiting him from using the tax money raised for the transportation of these pupils in any manner except to pay their parents or guardians after the latter had made expenditures and pre­ sented a sworn statement showing the actual cost of trans­ portation, but was rather a section which permitted the parents or guardians to recover in cases where the 1 School Code, State of California (Sacramento: California State Printing OfTTce, I§3§) , Section 3*337, p. 137. 2

Section 3.330^ pp. 171-72.

superintendent of schools had not seen fit to provide for the transportation of the pupils in any other manner and the parents were accordingly required to transport them or pay for their transportation.

If the superintendent desired to

supply bus transportation, he could do so under the provi3 sions of Section 1.70 to 1*91 of the School Code. The 1941 Legislature of the State of California re­ pealed that portion of the School Code regarding the payment of tuition and transportation of high school students attend­ ing high schools of another state, and added a number of new sections that were much clearer and easier to interpret. The new sections regarding transportation now read as follows Section 3.331. The county superintendent of schools of any county contiguous to an adjoining state may grant permission to pupils residing in said county to attend high sehool in a high school district of said adjoining state and may provide for the transportation of such pupils to said high school. Section 3.332. The county superintendent of schools shall have power and it shall be his duty to pay for the transportation and tuition of high school pupils residing in his county and attending high school in an adjoining state from the county high school tuition fund of his county in the man­ ner provided in this article. . . The county superintendent may not, In lieu of furnish­ ing transportation to a pupil attending a high school in an 3 Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N .S #1848 to Elmer W. Heald, District Attorney, Imperial County, July 21, 1939. ^ C&lif°**n3»a Statutes. 1941, Chapter 507.

30

adjoining state, pay to the parents or guardian of such pupil the cost of food and lodging of the pupil at a place conven­ ient to such high school.

This payment is not authorized by 5 Section 1,73 of the School Code, Nor may the superintendent pay the parents or guardians of pupils the cost of transport­ ing these students to a bus station where the cost of bus transportation meets the limit set by the state.

6

Transfer of junior college tuition funds,

The junior

college tuition fund of Placer bounty at the end of the fiscal year 1935-36 contained a balance of one thousand seven hundred eighty-five dollars and one cent.

Beginning in

September of 1936 the Placer Union High School District in­ augurated junior college classes, and it was therefore neces­ sary to divide the surplus between the tuition fund and the Placer Union High School District.

That portion of the

balance on hand which was attributable to the taxes collected from the section of the county within the high school dis­ trict was transferred to the high school district fund, the remainder being left in the junior college tuition fund. This remainder was to be applied upon expenses incurred during the next fiscal year for the instruction of junior D Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion U.S.2096 to Elmer W. Heald, District Attorney, Imperial County, November 10, 1939. 6 Loo. cit.

31

college students who resided in that portion of Placer County that lay outside of the Placer Union High School District* This division of funds was justifiable, as otherwise taxpayers in the high school district would be forced to. pay for the tuition, in part at least, for the education of junior college students who were not residents of the dis­ trict and for which the taxpayers of the district were in no 7 way responsible. Unapportioned county high school fund.

The county

superintendent must pay the transportation expenses of any high school pupil, who lives in a district not attached to any high school district or in a unified school district, who may be attending high school in any high school district or unified school district in the county in which he resides, or in another county, regardless of the fact that there may be a high school district or unified school district closer to his residence than the one attended*

Such expense must 8 be paid from the unapportioned county high school fund. With the beginning of the construction of the Shasta Dam Unit of the Central Valley Water Project a large influx

r* Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.1727 to Lowell L. Sparks, District Attorney, Placer County, May 26, 1939. ® U. S. Webb, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion M.S.530 to Mervin G. Lernhart, District Attorney, Napa County, August 21, 1937.

32

of workers to that area caused a sharp increase in the num­ ber of pupils attending the Shasta Union High School*

In the

contract between the Federal Government and the Pacific Con­ struction Company for the construction of the dam there was a clause to the effect that the * • • contractor shall make all necessary arrange­ ments with the proper State and County authorities for school facilities and instruction up to and including the 12th grade, for the families of con­ tractors, employees • • >. subject to the approval of the contracting officer*9 As that portion of the contract regarding sehool facilities and instruction had not been carried out, the expense of educating the children of the new families was a very heavy burden upon the school district*

An emergency

condition existed under the terms of Section 4*192 of the School Code, which provides for the use of the unapportioned county elementary school fund in providing emergency ele­ mentary schools for children of migratory workers*

However,

no such provision existed for the secondary schools, and it was the opinion of the attorney general that the Legislature, which was then in session, should be called upon to adopt a measure which would enable the county superintendent to use the unapportioned county high school fund for such an 9 Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.1447 to Laurence W* Carr, District Attorney, . Shasta County, February 17, 1939*

33

emergency condition.

10

No such legislation was passed by the

State Legislature, and the School Code still does not contain provision for an emergency condition relating to children of secondary school age of migratory laborers. II.

THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Under Section 31 of Article IV of the State Consti­ tution it is stated that notwithstanding the restrictions contained in the Constitution, the treasurer of any city, county, or city and county shall have power and It shall be his duty to make such temporary transfers from the funds in his custody as may be necessary to provide funds for meeting the obligations incurred for maintenance purposes by any

i

city, county, city and county, district, or other political subdivision whose funds are in his custody and are dispersed solely through his office.

Such temporary transfer of funds

to any political subdivision shall be made only upon reso­ lution adopted by the governing body of the city, county, or city and county, directing the treasurer of such city, county, or city and county to make such temporary transfer. Such temporary transfer of funds to any political subdivision shall not exceed eighty-five per cent of the taxes accruing to such political subdivision, and shall not be made prior to the first day of the fiscal year nor after 10 Loc. cit.

34

the last Monday in April of the current fiscal year, and shall be replaced from the taxes accruing to such political sub­ division before any other obligation of such political sub­ division is paid from such taxes. Article II of Chapter I of Part ill of Division IV of the School Code also contains a provision regarding the temporary transfer of funds.

This section makes it the duty

of the board of supervisors and the auditor and treasurer of a county to make a temporary transfer to the school fund of a county not immediately needed to pay claims against the said funds, whenever, prior to receipt by a school district of its state, county, or city and county, or district funds any such district shall not have sufficient money to its credit to meet current expenses of maintenance* Authority to transfer*

The two sections above men­

tioned grant to the boards of supervisors the authority to adopt a resolution directing the county treasurer to make the transfer as provided in Section 31 of Article IV of the Constitution.11

^ TJ* S* Webb, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10456 to Dan F. Conway, District Attorney, Fresno County, January 20, 1936. „ Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.l'to M.~ R* Van Wormer, District Attorney, San Luis Obispo County, October 31, 1936.

35

Definition of maintenance*

School districts may con­

sider the current expenses of the school, including teachers* salaries, janitors* salaries, purchases of supplies, and operation of sehool buses, as ”maintenance” within the mean­ ing of these sections.

The maintenance of a school system

implies the employment of teachers and other employees, for without such personnel there would be only buildings and grounds serving no useful purpose*

12

The board of supervisors, however, does not have authority to order a transfer of funds from a county to a school district to pay the interest and principal of matur­ ing bonds*

These payments could in no way be termed current 13 expenses of maintenance* Hor may a transfer of funds be made to a district where the county auditor made an error in calculating the tax levy of the district, inasmuch as the district would not be in possession of funds during the 14 current fiscal year to repay such a transfer* If these 1 2 U* S. Webb, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 9945 to Gilbert D* Ferrell, District Attorney, San Mateo County, May 16, 1935. # Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10S46 to Walter C* Haight, District Attorney, Tulare County, July 21, 1936. ^ Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N*S.1977 to Leslie A. Cleary, District Attorney, Stanislaus County, September 25, 1939* ^ Earl Warren, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N •S •1413 to F* G # Clowdsley, District Attorney, San Joaquin County, April 31, 1939*

36

repayments were made from the receipts of the following year, there would be a violation of Section 18 of Article XII of the State Constitution* Accrual of taxes to a political subdivision*

In 1935

the attorney general was of the opinion that Section 15 of Article XIII of the State Constitution permitted any funds received by the school districts to be considered as derived from county school taxes in computing the eighty-five per cent wof the taxes accruing to such political subdivision,11 when requesting a temporary transfer of funds for maintenance 15 purposes* In 1936 he wrote the following: . * * that no transfer can be made to a school district which will exceed eighty-five per cent of the taxes accruing to that school district. By •taxes1 is meant the taxes levied by that particular school district and not funds received by the State through taxes levied by the State* Further, that so far as Section 4.290 of the School Code is concerned, where it refers to such amount as fnot to exceed eightyfive per cent of the amount of moneys which will accrue to such school district during such fiscal year,* this must be considered unconstitutional If read as meaning that this amount is to be calculated with reference to all moneys, tax moneys and other­ wise, which may accrue to the school district during a fiscal year*-**® 3,5 U* S* Webb, op. cit.,. Opinion 9945. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 9966 to Vlerling Kersey, Superintendent of Public Instruction, May 21, 1935* 16 U* S. Webb, op. cit*, Opinion 10846*

37

As this has been the last opinion rendered in regard to this matter, it may be said that the eighty-five per cent computation must be made on the tax moneys levied by the district.

In order that the School Gode and the State Con­

stitution be made consistent as to this computation, legis­ lation should be undertaken to accomplish this purpose* Transfer from unapportioned school funds*

It is to

be noted that the Constitutional provision regarding trans­ fer of funds is broader than Section 4.290 of the School Code.

The Constitution authorizes transfer by the treasurer

from any funds in his custody, whereas the School Code section relating specifically to school districts authorizes a temporary transfer ”from any funds of said county.”

It is

the opinion of the attorney general that these transfers should be made from funds belonging to the county and which are under the direct control of the board of supervisors rather than from other funds which might be in the custody 17 of the county treasurer. This is also the usual procedure of almost all counties*

The unapportioned county school

funds are in the custody of the county treasurer, but are not under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors*

3-7 "u* S. Webb, op. cit., Opinion 9956. U* S. Webb, op. cit.. Opinion 10846.

The

38

uses to which these funds may be put are specified in the School Code, and the temporary transfer from these funds is not one of them. Although the practice has not been to transfer moneys from these funds, it might be allowed by interpretation of the Constitution.

Therefore an amendment should be made to

the Constitution rectifying the discrepency between the Constitution and the School Code provisions on this subject* Repayment of fund.

The transferred funds must be

repaid from the first moneys received from district taxes. However, the funds may be repaid prior to that time should the district come into possession of funds from some source 18 other than district taxes. Transfer to interest and sinking fund.

The board of

supervisors may not transfer funds from the general fund of the county to the interest and sinking fund of a school 19 district. Section 3054a of the Political Code allows the board of supervisors to transfer funds from the general fund of the county to the interest and sinking fund of a district for payment of the bonds coming due before taxes for that TJ. S. Webb, op. cit., Opinion 10846. 19 Earl Warren, Attorney General,.State of California, Opinion N. S.2262 to M. Arthur Waite, District Attorney, Ventura County, January 11, 1940.

39

fiscal year are collected.

This section, however, does not

aPPly to a “separate corporate entity,11 and a sehool is OA

considered as a “separate corporate entity.” III.

SUMMARY

The county superintendent of schools of a county adjacent to another state may use funds from the county high school tuition fund to pay for the transportation of pupils from his county to schools in the adjoining state.

This

fund may not he used to pay for lodging of these students at the school, even though the county superintendent does not furnish transportation* In a county where junior college classes are estab­ lished for the first time, any balance in the junior college tuition fund must be divided between the school district maintaining the classes and the tuition fund. The unapportioned county high school fund may not be used by the county superintendent of schools to provide emergency high schools for the children of migratory laborers. Boards of supervisors have the authority to order the transfer of funds for maintenance purposes such as the pay­ ment of salaries and the expenses of the school, the school taxes of the district being used as a basis for determining the amount of money that may be transferred. . C.: American Council 6n“TIducati6n7 1939, 199 pp* Appendix II: Good, Carter V,, "Recent Graduate Thesis in School Law.” Pp. 166-196. , The Eighth Yearbook of School Law. Washington, D. C.TTmerican Counci 1 on^Education, 1940. 185 pp* Appendix III: Good, Carter V., "Recent Graduate Thesis in School Law.” Pp. 157-182* * ' , The Ninth Yearbook of School Law. Washington, E/'”C .Firmer Ican CouncII on Education, 1941. 199 pp. Appendix III: Good, Carter V., "Recent Graduate Thesis in School Law." Pp. 180-197. Edwards, Nev/ton, The Courts and the Public Schools: The Legal Basis of School Organization and Administration. Chicago: The'Uhiversity of Chicago Press, 1941 591' pp*

.

102

Mort. Paul R., and Walter C. Reusser, Public School Finance: Its Background, Structure, and Operation. Hew7York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1941. 5*69 pp* Trassler, Harry Raymond, Essentials or School Law. Bruce Publishing Company, 1927. “57S pp* B.

Hew York:

PERIODICAL ARTICLES

Lentz, Alfred E., “Legislation Affecting Education,” California Schools, Volumes 6 to 12, 1935-1941. C.

LEGAL MATERIALS

American Law Reports Annotated, 1916 to date. Rochester, Mew York: The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company. Baldwin, William Edward, Bouvier*s Law Dictionary: Students Edition. New York: The- Banks Law Publishing Company, T § m :— 1245 pp. California and Pacific Digest and Supplements, 1930 to date. ' St. P aul, M inne sota: West f»ub1ishing Company. California Apellate Reports, 1905 to date. California: Bancroft-Whitney Company. California Reports, 1850 to date. bancroft-Whitney Company.

San Francisco,

San Francisco, California:

Constitution of the State of California, January 1, 1939. Sacramento, California. Supervisor of' Document’s. Deering, James H., The General Laws of the State of Calif ornia. San Francisco, CaliTornla:" BancroTt-Whitney Company, 1939. , School Code of the State of California. California: BancroftYTCitney company , 1939.

San Francisco,

, The Civil Code of the State of California,. San kr ancisc’o, C al if or nia: Bancroft'-WETtney Company, 1939. , The Political Code of the State of California, San Francisco, California:* Bancroft-Whitney company, 1939*

103

Laws of 1940 and 1941 Relating to the California Public ScEoor^yiTenu BuIl' eTTin of"^Ehe^allTorh' ia 'Stale" " Department of* Education. Sacramento, California, Volume X, Humber 9, August, 1941. Pacific Reporter, 1883 to date. " West Publishing Company.

St. Paul, Minnesota:

School Code of the State of California together with Extracts from Other Codes and Extracts from the General Laws. Sacramento, California: Supervisor of Documents, 1937, 1939. D.

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Casey, Glenn D. , !,Supreme Court Decisions for 1934, 1935, and 1936 With Respect to Educational Administration. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1938# 141 pp* Gilmore, Carl Evart, ”A Comparative Study of the Methods of Financing Athletics in Small Union High. Schools.” Unpublished Master*s thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1934. 91 pp. Harding, George Carlton, ”Supreme Court Decisions for 1929 to 1930 with Respect to School Administration.” Unpublished Master*s thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1930. 63 pp* Hartman, Zafon A., ”Variations in Administrative Inter­ pretation of Certain Legal Regulations Affecting School Finance.” Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1940. 125 pp. Linley, James Markham, "Supreme Court Decisions for 1931, 1932, and 1933, with Respect to Educational Adminis­ tration.” Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1933* 119 pp* Peterson, Gerald Reinholt, ”A Survey of Present Practices in Financing Athletics in the Small High Schools of California.” Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1935. 81 pp.

104

Raugh, Stewart Bates, “The Powers and Limitations of School Boards to Enter into Capital-Outlay Contracts*n Un­ published Master*s thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1929* 63 pp* E.

OPINIONS CP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Webb, U. S., Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 9945 to Gilbert D. Ferrell, District Attorney, San Mateo County, May 16, 1935* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 9 W 6 to Stanley Mussell, District Attorney, San Bernardino County, May 14, 1935* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 9956 to Vierling Kersey, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, May 21, 1935. Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10060 to W. F. Cowan, District Attorney, Sonoma County, July 17, 1935. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10X89 to Vierling Kersey, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, September 12, 1935. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10267 to Walter C. Haight, District Attorney, Tulare County, October 11, 1935. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10403 to Vierling Kersey. Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, December 13, 1935. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10426 to Vierling Kersey, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, January 7, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10445 to Thomas Whelan, District Attorney, San Diego County, December 31, 1935.

105 , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion TOT56 to Ban F. Conway, District Attorney, Fresno County, January 20, 1936*

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10460 to Dr. Alvin J. Cox, Chief, Division of Chemistry, State Department of Agriculture, January 30, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10344 to Albert D. Barnes, District Attorney, Ventura County, February 26, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10576 to Vierling Kersey. Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, March 27, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10708 to Vierling Kersey, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, May 19, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10346 to Walter O. Haight, District Attorney, Tulare County, July 21, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion Barnes, District Attorney, Ventura County, August 30, 1936.

10391 to Albert

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 10083 to Albert D # Barnes, District Attorney, Ventura County, November 14, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion TTTO.l to M. R. Van Wormer, District Attorney, San Luis Obispo County, October 31, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California. Opinion 1T73#91 to Percy C. Heckendorf, District Attorney, Santa Barbara County, December 16, 1936. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion Tr75>.344 to W. F, Menton, District Attorney, Orange County, May 14, 1937. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion H.S.530 to Mervin C. Lernhart, District Attorney, Napa County, August 21, 1937.

106 , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion T O C 607 to F. A* Silveira, District Attorney, Merced County, September 25, 1937#

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion T O C 798 to Jerome B. Kavanaugh, District Attorney, San Bernardino County, January 8, 1938. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion h.8.890 to Walter F. Dexter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, March 23, 1938* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion IT.3. 974 to Walter C. Haight, District Attorney, Tulare County, April 27, 1938* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion ¥7^.1066 to Walter F. Dexter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, July 1, 1938. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion I C S *1073 to Jerome B. Kavanaugh, District Attorney, San Bernardino County, July 7, 1938. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion T O C 1074 to Jerome B* Kavanaugh, District Attorney, San Bernardino County, July 9, 1938. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N,S.1090 to Elmer W. Heald, District Attorney, Imperial County, July 15, 1938. * Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N'.S'*1100 to James B. Abbey, District Attorney, San Diego County, July 20, 1938. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion U.S.1118 to Glenn D. Newton, District Attorney, Shasta County, July 29, 1938. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion ¥.3.1155 to Leslie A. Cleary, District Attorney, Stanislaus County, August 15, 1938. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion ICS. 1173 to Benjamin B. Knight, District Attorney, Santa Cruz County, September 3, 1938.

107 , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion NTS'* 1257 to Toland S. McGettigan, District Attorney, Sonoma County, October 22, 1938.

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion If.S.1289 to Leslie A. Cleary, District Attorney, Stanislaus County, December 2, 1938. . Warren, Earl, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.1402 to Frank Clark, Director of Motor Vehicles, January 27, 1939. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion U.S.1413 to F. C, Clowdsley, District Attorney, San Joaquin County, April 3, 1939. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion BT.3•1435 to M. Arthur Waite, District Attorney, Ventura County, February 9, 1939. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion h.S.1447 to Laurence w. Carr, District Attorney, Shasta County, February 17, 1939* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion H73.1657 to Alfred E. Lentz, Administrative Advisor, State Department of Education, May 1, 1939. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to,i>,1727 to Lowell L* Sparks, District Attorney, Placer County, May 26, 1939. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion JT73.1848 to Elmer W. Heald, District Attorney, Imperial County, July 21, 1939. "r

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 1173,1977 to Leslie A. Cleary, District Attorney, Stanislaus County, September 25, 1939. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion H7S.2096 to Elmer W. Heald, District Attorney, Imperial County, November 10, 1939. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.S.2183 to Walter R. Evans, District Attorney, Mono County, December 30, 1939.

108 , Attorney General, State of, California, Opinion to.£.2262 to M. Arthur Waite, District Attorney, Ventura County, January 11, 1940.

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.5.2374 to Alfred E. Lentz, Administrative Advisor, State Department of Education, March 5, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to".S.2469 to Alfred E. Lentz, Administrative Advisor, State Department of Education, March 30, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.5.2571 to Laurence W. Carr, District Attorney, Shasta County, May 16, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 'to.S.2795 to Walter F. Dexter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Education, July 23, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.5.2827 to Dixwell L. Pierce, Secretary, State Board of Equalization, August 8, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.S.2851 to Laurence W. Carr, District Attorney, Shasta County, August 24, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.S.2858 to Burt W, Busch, District Attorney, Lake County, August 22, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion “tors’.2983 to William M. MacMillian, District Attorney, Plumas County, October 17, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California. Opinion to.S.2987 to William M. MacMillian, District Attorney, Plumas County, October 24, 1940. , Attorney General?, State of California, Opinion to.§,3083 to Thomas Scott, District Attorney, Kern County, December 4, 1940. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion ¥75*.3084 to Philip B. Lynch, District Attorney, Solano County, November 19, 1940.

109 , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion S.3272 to Leslie Cleary, District Attorney, Stanislaus County, February 13, 1941.

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion toTS.3286 to Francis P. Healey, District Attorney, Contra Costa County, February 18, 1941* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to,S.331-7 to Jerome B. Kavanaugh, District Attorney, San Bernardino County, February 28, 1941. ., Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.S.3323 to Raymond M. Dunne, District Attorney, San Joaquin County, March 4, 1941. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.S.3386 to Anthony Brazil, District Attorney, Monterey County, March 31, 1941. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.S.3666 to Otis D. Babcock, District Attorney, Sacramento County, July 26, 1941. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion to.S'.3671 to Elmer W. Heald, District Attorney, Imperial County, September 12, 1941* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion NTS.3770 to George F. Holden, District Attorney, Orange County, September 10, 1941.

i

, Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N7£>.3862 to Percy C. Heckendorf, District Attorney, Santa Barbara County, November 5, 1941* , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion 3884 to Laurence W. Carr, District Attorney, Shasta County, December 3, 1941. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion N.S.3896 to Francis P. Healey, District Attorney, Contra Costa County, November 10, 1941. j Attorney General, State of California, Opinion tors’*3945 to Alfred E. Lentz, Administrative Advisor, State Department of Education, December 4, 1941. , Attorney General, State of California, Opinion toTS.3968 to Walter R. Evans, District Attorney, Mono County, December 12, 1941*