Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1973 )

I - i
_ .x
a.
I ~
THE ATNBRNEY GENERAL
OF%?lEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
February 15, 1973
Honorable Joe Max Shelton Opinion No. H-11
Grayson County Attorney
104 S. Crockett Re: Under present law, can the
Sherman, Texas 75090 Grayson County Commis s -
ioners Court legally amend
the 1973 County Budget and
allow a blanket increase in
salaries of county employees,
Dear Mr. Shelton: effective January 1, 1973?
Mr. W. 0. Williams, County Auditor of Grayson County, has asked
you to secure our written opinion to the following question:
“Under the present law, can the Grayson
County Commissioners Court legally amend the
1973 County Budget and allow a blanket increase
in salaries of county employees, effective
January 1, 1973?”
Mr. Williams advises that the 1973 budget was filed July 31, 1972,
and adopted by the Commissioners Court on August 17, 1972, at which
time the Commissioners Court could not foresee enough revenue to in-
clude an employee salary increase. Since that time Grayson County has
been the recipient of funds under the Federal Revenue Sharing Law and
there are funds available for salary raises.
Mr. Williams was concerned about the apparent conflict between
Article 3912k, Section 2(a), Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, and Article
689a-11, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes.
Article 689a-11, V. T. C. S. , provides that the commissioners court
shall hold a budget hearing subsequent to August 15 and prior to setting
the tax levy in September. It also provides that:
-45-
Honorable Joe Max Shelton, page 2 (H-11)
11
. . . emergency expenditures, in case of
grave public necessity, to meet unusual and unfore-
seen conditions which would not, by reasonably
diligent thought and attention, have been included
in the original budget, may from time to time be
authorized by the Court as amendments to the
original budget. . . .‘I
Article 689a-20 provides, in part:
“Nothing contained in this Act shall be con-
strued as precluding the Legislature for making
changes in the budget for state purposes or pre-
vent the County Commissioners’ Court from making
changes in the budget for county purposes . . .I’
The reported cases have little to say about Article 689a-20. Article
689a-llhas been before the courts for interpretation. Ganeralljr, they
have held that its provisions must be met and that the circumstances
must show “unusual and unforeseen conditions”,‘grave public necessity”,
etc. Bexar County v. Hatley, 136 Tex. 354, 150 S.W.2d 980 (1940);
Guerra v. McClellan, 243 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio, 1951,
no writ history).
In most situations amendments to a county budget will have to meet
the requirements of Article 689a-11, V. T. C. S. Whether circumstances
exist which will warrant an amendment to the budget will be a question of
fact in each case.
However, as to salaries of county officers and employees, the rule
has been impliedly amended by the enactment, in 1971, of Article 3912k,
which provides, in part:
“Section 1. Except as otherwise provided by
this Act and subject to the limitations of this Act
the commissioners court of each county shall fix
the amount of compensation, office expense, travel
expense, and all other allowances for county and
-46-
- _
.- :
I
,
.’
Honorable Joe Max Shelton, page 3 (H-l 1)
precinct officials and employees who are paid
wholly from county funds, but in no event shall
such salaries be set lower than they exist at
the effective date of this Act. ”
“Section 2(a), The salaries, expenses, and
other allowances of elected county and precinct
officers shall be set each year during the regular
budget hearing and adoption proceedings on giving
notice as provided by this Act. . . ”
This statute has not been the subject of construction by the courts.
However, it is a well recognized rule of statutory construction that the
granting of an expressed power by the Legislature gives with it, by
necessary implication, every other power necessary and proper to the
execution of the power expressly granted. Terre11 v. Sparks, 104 Tex.
191, 135 S.W. 519 (1911); Moon v. Allred, 277 S.W. 787 (Tex.Civ.
App. 1925, error dism. ). Following these authorities it has been the
consistent interpretation of this office that, where the Legislature has
authorized county commissioners to fix or raise salaries for county
officials and employees, the commissioners court has the implied
power to amend the county budget for the purpose of authorizing the
payment of such salaries. Attorney General Opinions V-857(1949);
C-505( 1965); and M-436( 1969).
Section 1 of Article 3912k gives to the commissioners court auth-
ority to fix all county salaries, for elected officials and employees
alike, provided they are paid wholly from county funds. Section 2,
which applies only to elected county and precinct officers, requires that
their salaries be ,set during the regular budget hearing. The absence
of any such restriction regarding the fixing of non:elected employees’
salaries indicates that salaries of employees other than elected county
and precinct officers may be fixed at times other than during the regular
budget hearing. To the extent that this is inconsistent with Article
689a-11, Article 3912k furnishes an implied exception thereto. Lane v.
State, 305 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. Crim. , 1957); City of Marshall v. State
Bank, 127 S.W. 1083 (Tex.Civ.App., 1910, error ref. n.r.e.); 53
GJur. 2d 162, Statutes 5 111.
-47-
Honorable Joe Max Shelton, page 4 (H-l 1)
We therefore answer the first part of your question that the Gray-
son County Commissioners Court may amend the county’s 1973 budget
and allow an increase in the salaries of county employees other than
elected county or precinct officers. As to elected county and precinct
officers, any increases in their salaries must await budget hearings
for the next fiscal year.
Your letter to us, dated January 1, 1973, asked if the raises
could be given effective as of that date. It is our opinion that any
salary increases authorized by the commissioners court must operate
prospectively and not retroactively. Article 3, Section 53, Constitution
of Texas; Pierson v. Galveston County, 131 S.W.Zd 27’(Tex. Civ. App;,
Austin, 1939, no writ history); Fausett v. King, 470 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.
Civ.App. , El Paso, 197 1, no writ history).
-SUMMARY -
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 3912k the
Grayson County Commissioners Court may amend its
1973 Budget to allow an increase in the salaries of
non-elected employees, such increase to be effective
at the time of its adoption or thereafter but not
retroactively.
Very truly yours,
JOHN L. HILL
c/ Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
-48-