Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-496

Opinion No. 496. Schools-.1oint School Dish'iets-Reg- istered Warrants, Payment of- Teachers. HELD: In the absence of any stat- utory prol'isions regulating the custody of funds and payment of registered warrants in elementar.,· joint school districts, it is reasonable to follow the prOloisions governing high schools in the same matter. . A teacher should not be made to suf- fer where school officials have caused bel' to register warrants in the county of a joint school district whiclt doe~ not have custody of the funds, and not in the county which does, since the ob- ligation is an ohligation of the district. February 26, 1934. You submit the following matter and request an opinion thereon: "During the year 1931-32, one Mrs. W. L. Viebrock'taught School Distlict No. 89, which is a joint school dis- trict witb Musselshell County. She received registered warrants to the amount of $260.00 registered from De- cember 10, 1931 to May 2, 1932, in Musselshell County. During the Sum- mer of 1932, the County Superintend- ent of Golden Valley ordered that all the business of said school district be transacted in Golden Valley Coun- ty, the place where the school house was and is now situated. No school "'as held during tlte school year of 1932'33. During the school year of ] 933-34, school is being held in said (;ounty, and registered warrants are threatened to be paid out of funds in the Golden Yalley County leal'ing the previous rel,oistered warrants in Mus- selshell County unpaid. "All warrants should be paid in the order of their re!,oistt'ation, and it seems to me the place or county with- in which they may be is immaterial; but how to handle this situation, I cannot tell unless we obtain some court order to transfer the registered warrants in Musselshell County, re- taining the original date of registra- tion of ~lusselshell County warrants so as to be ahead of the Golden Val- ley registered warrants. How else the trustees could effectil'ely make ar- rangements to get the same results, I am unable to determine." 34Q OPINIONS Oli' 'l'HE A'f'l'ORNEY GEXERAL There is no statute relating to your problem as far as it applies to ele- mentary schools, and we find no court aeNon in whieh it is involved, but we think the legislative intent in such a matter may be assumed from a provi- sion of the statute relating to high sehools where sueh a situation is pro- vided for. Section 28 of Chapter 178, Laws of 1933, provides as follows: "The COUll- ty Treasurer of each county in which any part of a joint school district, maintaining a hi;;h school, or high sehools, is situated, shall, on the fif- teenth day of December in each year, and at the end of every three (3) months thereafter, transmit all moneys in his possession belonging to such joint school district, to the County Treasurer of the county required to keep the budget and high school ac- counts of the joint district." In the 'lbsence of any statutory proviSion reg- nlating this matter in elementary sehools, we think it reasonahle to fol- low the prOVISIOn governing high schools in the same matter. If this cannot be done and no other satisfac- tory adjustment can he made, we think your next best course could be to sub- mit the matter to the district court and get the Court's interpretation of the duty of the school officials in the premises. 'While warrants IlIUSt be paid in the order of their registration, except "here otherwise pro,ided by statutes. and the teacher's warrants to which ~'ou refer are not registered in one of the counties in whieh a part of the school district is located, yet the war- rants are an obligation of the district, and the registration in one county was. no doubt, due to the acts of the school officials. The dilemma confronting the teacher is probably not due to any neglect or fault of the teacher, and the teacher should not he made to suffer from the negligent acts of the school officials.