The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 5260

February 2, 1978

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Deposit for textbooks

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN:

Art 8, Sec. 2

Pursuant to specific authorizing legislation, a board of education may require students to make a reasonable and refundable textbook deposit where the student or his parents are financially able to make the deposit.

Honorable Gary M. Owen

State Representative

State Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion as to whether boards of education may require students to provide refundable textbook deposits where there has been a voted increase in the constitutional tax rate limitation under Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 6, for the purpose of purchasing textbooks. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that, pursuant to Const 1963, art 8, Sec. 2, boards of education must provide students with free textbooks and school supplies. Bond v Ann Arbor School District, 383 Mich 693; 178 NW2d 484 (1970).

In 1976 PA 451, Sec. 1422; MCLA 380.1422; MSA 15.41422, the legislature has provided the following:

'(1) The board of each school district shall select, approve, and purchase the textbooks to be used by the pupils of the schools on the subjects taught in the district.

'(2) The textbooks shall be the property of the school district purchasing them and shall be loaned to pupils without charge. A board may require a reasonable and refundable deposit on textbooks.' (emphasis added)

Thus, the legislature has expressly authorized boards of education to require students to provide reasonable and refundable deposits for textbooks which are, of course, public property. Further, a voted increase in the constitutional tax rate limitation for the school district under Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 6, for the purpose of purchasing textbooks, does not preclude a board of education from requiring a reasonable and refundable textbook deposit under the above quoted statutory section. It may be noted that a deposit is not a charge for the use of the textbook because the money deposited is returned in full if the textbook is restored in an undamaged condition.

In Bond, supra, the Michigan Supreme Court did not pass upon the question of whether, consistent with Const 1963, art 8, Sec. 2, a refundable textbook deposit may be required. However, in Segar v Board of Education of the School District of the City of Rockford, 317 Ill 418; 148 NE 289 (1925), the Illinois Supreme Court held that, despite the provision of the Illinois Constitution (1) establishing 'free schools,' a board of education could require payment of a deposit for textbooks to assure their return in reasonably good condition, due allowance being made for the usual wear or tear.

Therefore, it is my opinion that boards of education may require students to make a reasonable and refundable textbook deposit, where the student or his parents are financially able to make the deposit, irrespective of whether there has been a voted increase for the school district in the constitutional tax rate limitation under Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 6, for the purpose of purchasing textbooks.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

(1) Illinois Constitution, art 8, Sec. 1.