Title: Presley v. Board of County Commissioners

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

Presley v. Board of County Commissioners  Presley v. Board of County Commissioners 1999 OK 45 981 P.2d 309 70 OBJ 1669 Case Number: 92675 Decided: 05/18/1999 Mandate Issued: 06/17/1999 Supreme Court of Oklahoma PATRICIA PRESLEY, in her official capacity as Oklahoma County Court Clerk; CAROLYN CAUDILL, in her official capacity as Oklahoma County Clerk; and JOHN WHETSEL, in his official capacity as Oklahoma County Sheriff, Appellants, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Appellees. [981 P.2d 310] APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY; The Honorable Nancy Coats, District Judge. ¶0 The appellees, Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County (commissioners), sought a declaratory judgment that all county officers should receive raises pursuant to REVERSED. Timothy E. Rhodes Chief Deputy Court Clerk Oklahoma City, Oklahoma For Appellants. Gretchen Crawford Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma City, Oklahoma John M. Jacobsen Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma City, Oklahoma For Appellees. ¶1 KAUGER, J.: ¶2 It is uncontested that failure to give raises to all county officers under AGREED FACTS ¶3 On November 1, 1998, ¶4 The appellants, county officers, were in the middle of elected terms on November 1, 1998 --- the effective date of ¶5MID-TERM PAY INCREASES FOR COUNTY OFFICERS PROHIBITED BY THE OKLA. CONST. art. 23, §10 AND BY ¶6 The county officials assert that equal protection guarantees are not infringed by a statutory scheme which results in differing pay scales for elected individuals performing essentially identical duties. They find support in State ex rel. Edmondson v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 1998 OK 118, 971 P.2d 868 in which we held that the Legislature lacked the authority to amend the Okla. Const. art. 9, §18a10 to grant Corporation [981 P.2d 312] Commissioners pay increases during their terms of office. The commissioners rely on Kirk v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1979 OK 80, 595 P.2d 1334 holding that a statutory scheme providing two differing pay scales for county officials based upon when they entered office violates equal protection guarantees. They argue that Kirk requires all county officers to receive the pay increases contained in 19 O.S. Supp. 1993 §180.77. ¶7 Although neither the Legislature nor this Court has the authority to augment or diminish constitutional rights, ¶8 The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment requires that no state "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ¶9 There is a strong presumption which favors legislative enactments. A statute will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with fundamental law. ¶10 In Kirk, the Court recognized the premise that equal protection does not require exact equality. In striking down the statutory provision providing two distinct pay scales for county officials, the Court stated that to do otherwise would result in an unconstitutional application of art. 23, §10. Nevertheless, none of the policy reasons supporting art. 23, §10's prohibition against changing the compensation of a public official during a current term of office were discussed. However, more recently, we enumerated the important governmental concerns behind such provisions in Edmondson: 1) to establish definiteness and certainty in the salary pertaining to an office; 2) to take from public bodies the power to make gratuitous compensation to officers in addition to that established by law; 3) to establish the complete independence of the three branches of government; 4) to prevent office holders from using influence and position to secure salary increases after being elected; and 5) to insure that pay increases enacted at taxpayers' expense are for the benefit of the office and not a particular elected official. ¶11 Due process per se was not raised in Edmondson. However, the same important governmental interests relating to the prohibition in the Okla. Const. art. 23, §10 against varying an elected officials salary during a term of office apply to the equal protection argument and to the ills which the government may rationally hope to avoid through limiting the conditions under which an elected official's salary may be adjusted. The statutory imposition in CONCLUSION ¶12 All reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the constitutionality of legislative acts. Only when it is demonstrated that the Legislature has acted arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its authority will legislation be invalidated. REVERSED ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT