Texas Attorney General Opinion: H-659 Page: 3 of 4
4 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Honorable Grover E. Murray - page 3 (H-659)
a candidate for such an office. Accordingly, we believe it does violence
to this provision of the Texas Constitution for a faculty member or staff employee
to be routinely dismissed or placed on leave without pay upon becoming a
candidate for or holder of one of these local offices, so long as the office sought
or held is not legally incompatible with his employment. We do not suggest
that an employee may not be required to continue the adequate performance of
his duties, or that termination or a forced leave of absence may not be imposed
for failure to devote the time required for the satisfactory discharge of his
responsibilities. Letter Advisory No. 62 (1973). However, under article 16,
section 40 there can be no presumption that he will neglect his duties; any
actions taken against such an employee must be on the basis of actual inade-
quate performance. See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
As applied to candidacy for or acceptance of an office other than member-
ship on the governing bodies of school districts, cities, towns, or other local
governmental districts, we believe the Board's policy to be valid. We have
discovered no statutory or constitutional provision which would restrict the
power of the Board to compel a leave of absence without pay while campaigning,
or termination upon acceptance of such an office. Section 109. 21 of the Education
Code vests "the government, control, and direction of the policies of the
university" in the Board. In our opinion, this section authorizes the Board to
establish and implement the instant policy insofar as it does not conflict with
any statutory or constitutional provision. See Foley v. Benedict, 55 S. W. 2d
805 (Tex. Sup. 1932). In addition, acceptance cfand qualification for an office
which an employee may not constit utionally hold simultaneously with his
employment at the university will result in an automatic surrender of such
employment. Attorney General Letter Advisory No. 4 (1973); Attorney General
Opinion H-155 (1973); see also Centeno v. Inselmann, 519 S. W. Zd 889 (Tex.
Civ. App. -- San Antonio 1975, no writ). In regard to dual office holding by
collegiate faculty and staff, see generally Attorney General Letters Advisory
Nos. 87 (1974), 55 (1973), 30 (1973), 22 (1973).
You have also asked if a party office such as County Democratic
Chairman is a public office within the meaning of the Board's policy.
The matter is determined by the intent of the Board of Regents at
the time the rule was promulgated, and the determination of that intent is more
properly made by the Board.p. 2891
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: H-659, text, August 6, 1975; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth271184/m1/3/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.