TexasCHLforum.com

RPB wrote:As you are aware, Definitions in one code or statute are often utilized in another and as "Premises" is defined in two different ways in two different Statutes in the Penal Code, each place referring to "Premises" points to which of the two definitions it means.
TEC points to no alternate definition, but refers throughout, to the government code.
And you haven't shown anything in the Texas Education Code which negates the definition contained in the Texas Local Government Code, to which the Texas Education Code is subject.
You are welcome to try to show where the government says a school district is not part of the government
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /ed.11.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but I suspect you'll keep your position, and we'll keep ours anyway.
I do understand where corporate body as school districts incorporate could be thought of as non-govt, in the same way a city which incorporates is not a "State Agency" though it (a municipality) is preempted in some areas by State law with regard to what it can and can not regulate, therefore subject to the State. So both school districts and cities incorporate, and both are subject to State Law ...I mean I see your position/argument, though I disagree.

It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... and the Government itself says school districts are a State Agency

It's a duck.


Or, prove it isn't a duck (government agency) in contrast to/conflicting with the definition stating it is.
Education code,
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /ed.11.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Simple logic:
What types of bodies are regulated by the Government code? Govt bodies
Open Meetings laws? Govt bodies
Does the Government Code regulate private corporations? no ...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /ed.11.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Texas Education Code
Sec. 11.0621. MEETINGS. The minutes, certified agenda, or recording, as applicable, of a regular or special meeting of the board of trustees must reflect each member's attendance at or absence from the meeting. The minutes or tape recording of an open meeting must be accessible to the public in accordance with Section 551.022, Government Code.

Seriously, one must conclude that Government agencies are all that the government code regulates
TEA is regulated by the Govt code
School districts are regulated by the govt code and TEA which is subject to the education code and govt code
School districts meetings must comply with Govt code
School districts are regulated by the Govt code
Govt code can only control/regulate governmental bodies ...

As I said, I see where you could attempt to use "body corporate" and that definition and incorporating processs could be stretched to attempt to make a school board/trustees some private corporation not subject to the govt code ... it won't work.
Sure, perhaps its a non-profit corporation legal entity
http://www.academicadvocates.org/articl ... ration.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's a governmental agency, as the govt code so states and no definition elsewhere contradicts that, but the structure rather supports it being a governmental agency supported by taxes with elections and authority to assess and collect taxes etc etc..
IMHO, and you haven't shown anywhere that says it isn't ... It is still a State Agency.

I mean I do understand your position. There are attorneys who are members here, and one attorney in town goes broke, two with opposite positions make money, it appears they are wiser than I am, and remain silent ...I respect your right to your opinion though I disagree, because there is more/greater preponderance of evidence, and greater weight, that a school district is a State Agency, than that they aren't. So, neither of us are going to change opinions, and I don't believe any definition nullifies the one given, so I'll agree that we disagree.

The government itself defines School districts as State Agencies, and no where does the government state nor define a school district as not being a State Agency.

RPB wrote:What better place to see if something is "government" than the government itself, as defined in the government code.
Since TEC Texas Education Code is also a code/codified set of Statutes, it is in no way superior to the >> Government Code.
If there is a conflict of laws (statutes/codes), case law would rule.

You asked for a definition, I provided it.
TEA is obviously a State Agency (Texas Education Agency) and school districts, which the Government Code states are Government Agencies, are subject to that State Agency.

And thus it is proved, Q.E.D., uod erat demonstrandum, clearer it could hardly be, though you may disagree, the Government itself claims that the school districts are government agencies, and subject to a government agency.....

it's a duck

RPB wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:LOL...all I can say in response is you have made a very broad statement. If I understand you correctly, you have determined that a 'school district' is a 'government agency' REGARDLESS of how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom...very broad and (in my opinion) totally unsupportable. The TEC is full of references in regard to defining specific types of school districts, and how they are totally different with regard to how they are formed/dissolved, how they are regulated, and who regulates them. Have you actually read any part of the TEC???

It appears to me that the statute specifically states that a school district is a government agency, no need to read anything else, there it is in black letter law. Yup, it's a broad statement, it's a broad law "(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state."

And yet, you deny that the statute exists, even after it's posted for you.

No, I don't deny that it exists. I do believe that to understand the definition of a 'school district' you must reference the TEC. In doing so, you will see defined several unique school districts. So, in the statute you referenced, it probably (I have not researched it) is addressing those school districts that could be considered a 'government agency' such as a municipal school district since the municipality actually owns the real and personal property used/accessed by the municipal school district. I can say with reasonable certainty that the statute you referenced does not define a school district. In fact, I am positive that it does not define a school district.

Definition: School District

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY

SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT

Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec. 271.003. DEFINITIONS
(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.
...
(9) "School district" means an independent school district, common school district, community college district, junior college district, or regional college district organized under the laws of this state.

Now it's red letter law

Keith B wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Keith B wrote:Case law and Texas Attorney General opinion show that an ISD IS a governmental entity in the fact they are subject to the Open Records Act. See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of- ... 38398.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kyle Brown, you asked for case law, I gave it. See above. Texas ISD's are governmental entities per the Texas Court of Appeals. Search trhe document and you will find the phrase 'A governmental entity like Arlington ISD' in the ruling.

Actually, I never asked for case law. You and several others cosistently quoted it in an attempt to support your position. I clearly asked for statutory support of your position. There is none. So, we should conclude that, in the absence of statutory clarification, the need for case law increases proportionately. Legislators have the ability / auhority to create statutory law that would define an ISD as a government entity, but they have not. In fact, if you actually read the TEC you will not be able to aviod seeing repeated instances where the legislators went to great lengths to preserve the independent status of ISD to the extent they did not declare them 'government entities'.

The case law sets precidence that an ISD is a governmental entity. That is all that would be needed in a court of law. End of discussion from me because you apparently have your mind set and will not be swayed.

jimlongley wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:LOL...all I can say in response is you have made a very broad statement. If I understand you correctly, you have determined that a 'school district' is a 'government agency' REGARDLESS of how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom...very broad and (in my opinion) totally unsupportable. The TEC is full of references in regard to defining specific types of school districts, and how they are totally different with regard to how they are formed/dissolved, how they are regulated, and who regulates them. Have you actually read any part of the TEC???

It appears to me that the statute specifically states that a school district is a government agency, no need to read anything else, there it is in black letter law. Yup, it's a broad statement, it's a broad law "(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state."

And yet, you deny that the statute exists, even after it's posted for you.

Keith B wrote:

Keith B wrote:Case law and Texas Attorney General opinion show that an ISD IS a governmental entity in the fact they are subject to the Open Records Act. See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of- ... 38398.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kyle Brown, you asked for case law, I gave it. See above. Texas ISD's are governmental entities per the Texas Court of Appeals. Search trhe document and you will find the phrase 'A governmental entity like Arlington ISD' in the ruling.

jimlongley wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

RPB wrote:governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

Isn't (4) above "statute?"

If not, why not?

If so, why, Kyle Brown, are you ignoring it while insisting that others show you a statute?

Either way it appears that there is a wealth in evidence that ISDs are indeed governmental entities and therefore cannot post VALID 30.06 signage.

I apologize for the delay in answering your question. The Texas Education Code (TEC) indentifies and defines seveal types of public "school districts". For instance, the TEC identifies and defines Municipal School Districts, Common School Districts, Military Reservation School Districts, Independent School Districts, and Consolidated School Districts. Furthermore, the TEC specifies that the Texas Education AGENCY (TEA) shall serve as the only state AGENCY regulating ALL pubic schools and public school districts within the State Of Texas. In addition, the TEC clearly provides for the establishment and dissolution of ISDs, and specifies the subsequent disposition of real and personal property owned by those ISDs. As I understood it, a part of the discussion in this thread focused on whether an ISD can post and enforce a TPC 30.06 sign on their real property. It is my opinion that they certainly can. My opinion is based upon the manner in which an ISD is formed and/or dissolved, how an ISD may acquire and dispose of real and personal property, that an ISD is not a state agency, that the ISD board is required to take possession of real property owned by the ISD, that the board may allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property, and that the TEA does not (and I maintain cannot) deny an ISD the authority to allow individuals with a CHL to carry a concealed handgun onto their property.

ISD is a subset of "school district" therefore, by statute, it is a "Governmental agency" no matter how it was formed, how it is regulated, or by whom. There is the statute, that's all there is to it.

jimlongley wrote:

RPB wrote:governmental subdivision or agency

Texas Penal Code 1.08
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/pe.1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.

And a "school district" is a governmental agency with regard to property

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 271
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 8. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE OF PROPERTY
SUBTITLE C. ACQUISITION, SALE, OR LEASE PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 271. PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SUBCHAPTER A. PUBLIC PROPERTY FINANCE ACT
Sec. 271.001. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Public Property Finance Act.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... LG.271.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) This subchapter promotes a public purpose by furnishing governmental agencies with a feasible means to purchase or otherwise acquire, use, and finance public property.

(4) "Governmental agency" means a municipality, county, school district, conservation and reclamation district, hospital organization, or other political subdivision of this state.

Therefore, though they fence off and post signs, they are preempted by 1.08, from "enforcing": the 30.06 law to the extent it imposes a penalty....

or something like that
==edited because I linked to chapter 46 penal instead of chapter 1.08 ... corrected

Isn't (4) above "statute?"

If not, why not?

If so, why, Kyle Brown, are you ignoring it while insisting that others show you a statute?

Either way it appears that there is a wealth in evidence that ISDs are indeed governmental entities and therefore cannot post VALID 30.06 signage.

jmra wrote:I could go on and on but I will make this the last one;
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-publi ... -salaries/
From the Texas Tribune
"Today we're launching an update to our government payroll data app to include 14 school districts and five counties — an addition of 140,000 public employees earning $6 billion in payroll."
The database now contains information on more than 480,000 employees from 47 government agencies, including the largest state agencies, counties, cities, universities, school districts and mass-transit operators. The public now can search and explore more than $21 billion in public payroll, a significant portion of government spending that was compiled with information obtained under the Texas Public Information Act.
The app now has the following districts: Northside ISD, North East ISD, El Paso ISD, Aldine ISD, Arlington ISD, Katy ISD, San Antonio ISD, Pasadena ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Lewisville ISD, Garland ISD, Round Rock ISD, Plano ISD, Highland Park ISD. 

jmra wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:

jmra wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:I am so sorry that my comments seem to have taken this thread off topic. Please allow me to clarify my position with regard to ‘ownership’ of Texas ISD property. In doing so, I will (hopefully) bring this discussion back to the OP’s original question. Clearly, the statute requires the Board of Trustees (the body corporate) to take title to the ISD’s real and personal property. As title to the real property is passed to the body, so are certain ‘individual’ rights associated with the ownership of real property (privately owned property) in the State Of Texas. For instance, under the authority of those individual real property rights, the body may grant to any CHL holder written permission to carry a concealed handgun onto/into the body’s property. By and through that same ‘individual’ authority, a body could elect to fence off their entire real property (as in a school campus), and post and enforce TPC §30.06.

In addition, for those who are certain that an ISD is a government entity, I would say that in order to bring your position into proper and legal wording supported by statute, one would have to (at the very least) completely rewrite and/or eliminate significant portions of the Texas Education Code, Government Code, Property Code, Tax Code, Election Code, Family Code, Health and Safety Code, and the Civil Practice and Remidies Code. In doing so, you would void the concept of an ‘independent school district’.

I don't have to rewrite anything. The courts already recognize Public School ISDs as a government unit (see my post below).

"...supported by statute..." would be the operative part of my sentence.

I believe your interpretation is way off and has been debunked numerous times in this thread. Regardless of your opinion, the courts consider the Public ISD to be a government unit. The Trustees are elected public servants. Tax payer money is used to purchase the property. The property by definition is public property (government owned).

jmra wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:I am so sorry that my comments seem to have taken this thread off topic. Please allow me to clarify my position with regard to ‘ownership’ of Texas ISD property. In doing so, I will (hopefully) bring this discussion back to the OP’s original question. Clearly, the statute requires the Board of Trustees (the body corporate) to take title to the ISD’s real and personal property. As title to the real property is passed to the body, so are certain ‘individual’ rights associated with the ownership of real property (privately owned property) in the State Of Texas. For instance, under the authority of those individual real property rights, the body may grant to any CHL holder written permission to carry a concealed handgun onto/into the body’s property. By and through that same ‘individual’ authority, a body could elect to fence off their entire real property (as in a school campus), and post and enforce TPC §30.06.

In addition, for those who are certain that an ISD is a government entity, I would say that in order to bring your position into proper and legal wording supported by statute, one would have to (at the very least) completely rewrite and/or eliminate significant portions of the Texas Education Code, Government Code, Property Code, Tax Code, Election Code, Family Code, Health and Safety Code, and the Civil Practice and Remidies Code. In doing so, you would void the concept of an ‘independent school district’.

I don't have to rewrite anything. The courts already recognize Public School ISDs as a government unit (see my post below).

RPB wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:The taxpayers "own" it. The Trustees take care of it, and make decisions regarding disposing of the property when needed.

Example:
BURNET CISD "owns" Burnet High School as a subdivision of the State, which is the Taxpayers/voters etc
http://propaccess.trueautomation.com/Cl ... p_id=68793" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last 3 Deed transactions/Deed History

Deed Date Type Description Grantor Grantee Volume Page Deed Number
1 10/2/2000 12:00:00 AM WD WARRANTY DEED
MATTHEWS MICHAEL D DDS

LAND SPECIALTIES AND OPENS LANDS LLP
943/1077 967/723 0
2 WD WARRANTY DEED
LAND SPECIALTIES AND OPENS LANDS LLP

BURNET CISD
1078 980 0

BURNET CISD owns Burnet High School ... and the School District is, according to the CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE, and their own testimony ... a Governmental Unit, a Subdivision of the State (as is a County)
Trustees are the local managing body, as County Judges are over "County owned property", over that subdivision's resources.

That's my position/layman's opinion anyway. I could check with the Attorney for whom I worked the last 20 something years, he was Trustee at Channelview ISD many years ago, but I don't really want to talk to his wife If he said differently, I'd defer to his legal opinion of course.
=========================================
Edited to correct Spelling and add:

Search District Courts cases for Suits where the School is Defendant, you'll probably find them pleading in an Original Answer, probably with a Motion for Summary Judgement, that they are a governmental unit, and immune under Texas Tort Claims Act... so if they deny it later ... who is filing these false pleadings? Which time are they lying?

RPB wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:Property owned/leased by Texas ISDs is not government propery. All Texas ISD property (Real and Personal) is privately owned/leased by the Board of Trustees.

Can you provide evidence supporting this claim? As far as I can tell an ISD holds public elections along side government entities, they tax private property, they are exempt from sales tax, can assert eminent domain, have a police force, and act like a government in other ways. To convince me otherwise I would need to see some codified law or case law that says ISDs are not a governmental body.

Until there is supporting case law, the ISDs will continue to assert that they are not governmental entities and exempt from the exemption. As of right now there is no such case law, and that is their interpretation of the code.

Except in all the cases when they assert (under oath/and/or in Pleadings) they are a Governmental entity, therefore enjoy sovereign immunity
under:
Texas Tort Claims Act
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
TITLE 5. GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY
CHAPTER 101. TORT CLAIMS

(School Districts plead under oath that they ARE Governmental Subdivisions of the State ... and they do it often....and here's the Code defining them as such, as well as their motive for pleading such.)

Sec. 101.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(3) "Governmental unit" means:

(A) this state and all the several agencies of government that collectively constitute the government of this state, including other agencies bearing different designations, and all departments, bureaus, boards, commissions, offices, agencies, councils, and courts;

(B) a political subdivision of this state, including any city, county, school district, junior college district, levee improvement district, drainage district, irrigation district, water improvement district, water control and improvement district, water control and preservation district, freshwater supply district, navigation district, conservation and reclamation district, soil conservation district, communication district, public health district, and river authority;

SUBCHAPTER B. TORT LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

Sec. 101.021. GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY. A governmental unit in the state is liable for:

(1) property damage, personal injury, and death proximately caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment if:

(A) the property damage, personal injury, or death arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment; and

(B) the employee would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law; and

(2) personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property if the governmental unit would, were it a private person, be liable to the claimant according to Texas law.

Sec. 101.023. LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF LIABILITY. (a) Liability of the state government under this chapter is limited to money damages in a maximum amount of $250,000 for each person and $500,000 for each single occurrence for bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), liability of a unit of local government under this chapter is limited to money damages in a maximum amount of $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each single occurrence for bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property.

(c) Liability of a municipality under this chapter is limited to money damages in a maximum amount of $250,000 for each person and $500,000 for each single occurrence for bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property.

(d) Except as provided by Section 78.001, liability of an emergency service organization under this chapter is limited to money damages in a maximum amount of $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each single occurrence for bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single occurrence for injury to or destruction of property.

SUBCHAPTER C. EXCLUSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS

Sec. 101.051. SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS PARTIALLY EXCLUDED. Except as to motor vehicles, this chapter does not apply to a school district or to a junior college district.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... CP.101.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no lawyer, but was accepted to law school 3 times and retired after 25 years as a legal Asst and used to be a member of the State Bar Legal Assts Div....now, I'm jus lazy and sleepin' at a Holiday Inn ... sometimes.

jmra wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:Property owned/leased by Texas ISDs is not government propery. All Texas ISD property (Real and Personal) is privately owned/leased by the Board of Trustees.

Can you provide evidence supporting this claim? As far as I can tell an ISD holds public elections along side government entities, they tax private property, they are exempt from sales tax, can assert eminent domain, have a police force, and act like a government in other ways. To convince me otherwise I would need to see some codified law or case law that says ISDs are not a governmental body.

Education Code, Title 2. Public Education, Subtitle C. Local Organization and Governance, Chapter 11. School Districts, Subchapter D. Powers and Duties of Board Of Trustees Of Independent School District, §11.151. In General, (c) All rights and titles to the school property of the district, whether real or personal, shall be vested in the trustees and their successors in office. The trustees may, in any appropriate manner, dispose of property that is no longer necessary for the operation of the school district.

How does one become a Trustee?