Quantcast

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Texas AG can’t determine whether booze can be sold at a school banquet facility inside a football stadium

Hot Topics
Paxton

Paxton

AUSTIN - An attorney general opinion apparently can’t determine whether a banquet facility inside a stadium owned by the school district is a “building of a public school.” 

Back in July, Robert Love, Randall County’s criminal district attorney, submitted an AG opinion request on whether a banquet facility located at a football stadium owned by an independent school district is a “Building of a Public School” in the context of Texas Education Code Section 37.122(a)(1). 

The section states that a person commits an offense if the person possesses an intoxicating beverage for consumption, sale, or distribution while on the grounds or in a building of a public school. 

Canyon ISD owns the Happy State Stadium, which includes a banquet facility. The district’s board plans to lease the facility to private organizations for meetings and social functions and is considering whether to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, the request states.

On Jan. 18, Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion stating that neither the section nor any other provision in the Education Code defines the phrase “building of a public school.” 

“Whether a building in a stadium owned by a school district is a ‘building of a public school’ subject to the prohibition depends on the particular facts and therefore cannot be determined as a matter of law in an Attorney General opinion,” the opinion states. 

The opinion found that the lack of classrooms is relevant, but that a public school could use a

building for authorized purposes other than classroom instruction. 

“Also, while all school property belongs to the District, the District might assign a public school some rights of possession and control of a building,” the opinion states. “A court could consider these and other relevant matters to determine whether a particular building is a ‘building of a public school’ subject to the prohibition in subsection 37.122(a). 

“The investigation into and resolution of such fact questions is beyond the scope of the Attorney General opinion process.”   

Opinion No. KP-0397

More News