AISD signs

[RPB]

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?

[Keith B]

There was a long thread back in 2007 about AISD posting their school premises at the parking lot entrances with a sign specifying that all weapons were prohibited, regardless if the individual held a valid CHL. This morning I noticed that they've added compliant 30.06 signs, as well. The consensus is that these signs have no bearing on valid CHL holders, but does anyone know if there have been any test cases? Also, have there been any attempts to get AISD to remove the signs?

A parking lot 30.06 at a government owned/leased entity (and yes, AISD and Plano ISD are government entities) would not support a successful prosecution under 30.06. The statute is clear, government owned entities can't use 30.06 to bar CHL carry except where otherwise prohibited by 46.03, 46.035...and school parking lots are NOT.


Just more wishful thinking on the part of the misguided officials of these districts. No one is likely to be the proverbial "test case". I carry in similar incorrectly posted locations and care not a whit.

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.

An ISD IS a government entity, so in turn the Board of Trustees is part of that Government Entity.

[Kyle Brown]

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?

I would be interested in knowing his take on the statute I posted earlier: 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. The only time I used this statute in drafting a petition was in a case where an ISD employee when onto the high school parking lot, identified cars with floor mounted phone, called the students who drove those cars to the school onto the parking lot and ordered them to unlock the cars. The ISD employee then removed (as in unbolted; pulled out of the car) those phones from approx. 30 cars, put the phones in a trash bag, and refused to return them to the rightful owner. In their answer, the ISD did not plead they were a governmental entity. BTW, it was very expensive to reinstall/replace all of those phones.

[sjfcontrol]

It's a rather bizarre concept that real property purchased with tax revenues is owned "personally" by the trustees. If that were so, the trustees would owe taxes (including school taxes) on said personally owned property. It would also mean when one of the trustees vacates his office, he would take his personally-owned property with him. He could sell said property, and put the funds in his personal bank account.

No one individual "owns" property purchased with tax revenues. However, somebody needs to be responsible for its upkeep, and make decisions regarding its ultimate disposal. That power exists within the District's Board of Trustees. If they have the power to dispose of the property, that can only be done by passing title to it. Yes, the board holds the title and is responsible for the development, maintenance and ultimate disposal of the property. And that responsibility, along with the power to levy taxes to support the property makes them a governmental body.

Edit: The fact that they're called "Trustees" should give you some clue as to their function -- they are "entrusted" with the responsibility to manage the property for the real owners -- the taxpayers that paid for the property in the first place.

[jmra]

TISD claims to be a "Government Unit"
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/ninth ... /6378.html
TARKINGTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant
V.
S. KAY AIKEN AND MARK KENNETH AIKEN, Appellees
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 60395
OPINION
Appellees Mark Kenneth Aiken and his mother, S. Kay Aiken (collectively "Aiken"), sued appellant Tarkington Independent School District ("Tarkington I.S.D.") for personal injuries that Mark sustained while riding on the tailgate of a privately-owned pickup truck on school property. Claiming sovereign immunity, the school district filed a plea to the jurisdiction. After the trial court denied the jurisdictional plea, Tarkington I.S.D. filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.014(a)(8), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2002).

Further down:
"In this case, Tarkington I.S.D., a governmental unit, (2) is immune from both suit and liability for Mark's injuries unless the Texas Tort Claims Act (the "Act") waives that immunity. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 101.021, 101.025 (Vernon 1997); see also LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett Indep. Sch. Dist., 835 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tex. 1992)."

[Kyle Brown]

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’.

[jmra]

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).

[Kyle Brown]

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.

[jmra]

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).

[RPB]

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

[Kyle Brown]

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).

Needless to say, it is obvious to me that either you have choosen to ignore my statement OR you do not know the difference between statutory law and case law.

[jmra]

http://irvingisd.net/education/school/s ... ionid=1149
From Irving ISDs website - a notice from the purchasing dept
"Conflict of Interest Questionnaire
Effective May 25, 2007, Section 176.006, Local Government Code requires that persons or agents who enter or seek to enter into a contract with a local government entity shall file a completed conflict of interest questionnaire (Form CIQ), if they have an employment or other business relationship with an officer or family member of an officer of the entity or have given the officer or family member gifts in excess of $250 aggregated over a twelve-month period.
Failure to disclose this information is a Class C misdemeanor.  It is the responsibility of the vendor to comply with these legal requirements."

Obviously Irving ISD operates as a "local government entity", otherwise venders contracting with the school would not be bound by section 176.006.

[jmra]

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).

Needless to say, it is obvious to me that either you have choosen to ignore my statement OR you do not know the difference between statutory law and case law.

I do know the difference. The question in debate in this thread - can a public ISD effectively post a 30.06. 30.06 states that a government owned facility can not. Case law has established that an ISD is a government entity. So split hairs anyway you like, a Public ISD can not effectively post a 30.06 sign and prevent CC carry in its parking lot.

[jmra]

http://www.pearsallisd.org/pages/upload ... packet.pdf

Letter from PISD requiring all vendors doing business with the school comply with section 176 confirming that the ISD is a local government entity.

http://www.borgerisd.net/district/admin/business.htm
Another from BISD.

[Keith B]

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;