Title: State ex rel. George v. Verkamp

State: missouri

Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
STATE of MISSOURI ex rel. 
 
) 
COURTNEY GEORGE, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
vs. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC92219 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
RANDY VERKAMP, BUD DEAN, and ) 
LARRY STRATMAN, as the duly  
) 
elected and serving Commissioners of  
) 
Phelps County, Missouri, County   
) 
Commission, CAROL BENNETT as  
) 
the duly elected and serving County  
) 
Clerk of Phelps County, Missouri, and  ) 
CAROL GREEN, as the duly elected  
) 
and serving Treasurer of Phelps County,  ) 
Missouri, 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Respondents.  
) 
 
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Phelps County 
The Honorable Robert D. Schollmeyer, Judge 
 
Opinion issued May 15, 2012 
 
This appeal turns on whether a midterm increase in compensation for a full-
time prosecuting attorney violates article VII, section 13 of the Missouri 
Constitution, which prohibits the compensation of state, county, and municipal 
officers from being increased during the term of office.  Here, the midterm 
increase in compensation resulted from the application of a statutory formula for 
calculating compensation in place before Courtney M. George (hereinafter, 
 
1
 
2
                                                
“George”) was elected or took office as the Prosecuting Attorney of Phelps 
County.  As such, this increase in compensation did not violate article VII, section 
13 of the Missouri Constitution.  The preliminary writ of mandamus is made 
permanent. 
Factual and Procedural History 
 
The facts are undisputed.  On November 7, 2006, George was elected 
Prosecuting Attorney for Phelps County, Missouri, which is a full-time position.  
George’s term as prosecuting attorney began January 1, 2007, and ended 
December 31, 2010.  Section 56.265.1(1), RSMo 20001 mandates that a full-time 
prosecuting attorney’s compensation shall be equal to the compensation of an 
associate circuit judge.  The compensation for an associate circuit judge is 
established by the Missouri Citizens’ Commission on Compensation for Elected 
Officials (hereinafter, “the Commission”) pursuant to article XIII, section 3 of the 
Missouri Constitution.2  The Commission issued its report December 1, 2006, 
establishing the salary for an associate circuit judge as $106,181 per year, 
 
1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise indicated. 
2 Article XIII, section 3, subsection 1 provides in pertinent part:  “[I]n order to 
ensure that the power to control the rate of compensation of elected officials of 
this state is retained and exercised by the tax paying citizens of the state … no 
elected official, member of the general assembly, or judge, except municipal 
judges, shall receive compensation for the performance of their duties other than 
in the amount established for each office by the Missouri citizens’ commission on 
compensation for elected officials established pursuant to the provision of this 
section.” 
beginning July 1, 2007.3  The same report established the salary for an associate 
circuit judge as $109,366 per year, beginning July 1, 2008.4   
At the beginning of her term, George’s salary was $96,000 per year.  
George did not receive any salary increases during her term in office despite the 
Commission’s report increasing the salary for associate circuit judges in 2007 and 
2008. 
On November 18, 2010, George filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 
against the duly elected members of the Phelps County Commission, County 
Clerk, and County Treasurer (hereinafter, “Respondents”).  In her petition, George 
asserted Respondents failed to perform their ministerial duties by refusing to 
approve and pay her an increased salary that corresponded with the compensation 
established by the Commission’s report for associate circuit judges.  George 
requested a preliminary order in mandamus compelling Respondents to approve 
the increased compensation rates effective July 1, 2007, and July 1, 2008, and 
order Respondents to issue her underpayment of her salary for the duration of her 
term in office.   
 
The circuit court issued a preliminary order in mandamus, but later entered 
its judgment quashing the preliminary order after reviewing all of the pleadings.  
                                                 
3 The salary was calculated with a base salary of $101,088 per year and added an 
increase of $2,000 as a “differential reduction increase,” and a 3 percent state 
employee raise for the fiscal year 2008 of $3,092.   
4 This increase was due to a 3 percent state employee raise for the fiscal year 2009. 
 
3
The court of appeals transferred George’s case to this Court pursuant to Mo. 
Const. article V, section 11. 
Standard of Review 
A litigant seeking mandamus must “allege and prove that he [or she] has a 
clear, unequivocal, specific right to a thing claimed.”  State ex rel. Young v. Wood, 
254 S.W.3d 871, 872 (Mo. banc 2008) (quoting Furlong Cos., Inc. v. City of 
Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157, 166 (Mo. banc 2006)).  “Mandamus does not issue 
except in cases where the ministerial duty sought to be coerced is definite, arising 
under conditions admitted or proved and imposed by law.”  State ex rel. Collector 
of Winchester v. Jamison, 357 S.W.3d 589, 592 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting 
Furlong, supra).   
When a case is submitted on stipulated facts, the question this Court must 
resolve is whether the circuit court drew the proper legal conclusions from the 
facts stipulated.  Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys v. Barton County, 311 S.W.3d 
737, 740 (Mo. banc 2010).  The circuit court’s decision was based upon the 
interpretation and application of section 56.265 and various provisions of the 
Missouri Constitution to the stipulated facts; therefore, this Court’s review is de 
novo.  Id. 
Analysis 
Article VII, section 13 states, “The compensation of state, county and 
municipal officers shall not be increased during the term of office; nor shall the 
term of any officer be extended.”  This provision’s purpose is “to prevent persons 
 
4
while possessed of the prestige and influence of official power from using that 
power for their own advantage ….”  State ex rel. Scobee v. Meriwether, 200 
S.W.2d 340, 341 (Mo. banc 1947).   
“Despite its plain language, the Constitutional prohibition against midterm 
increases in compensation is not absolute.”  Laclede County v. Douglass, 43 
S.W.3d 826, 828 (Mo. banc 2001).  This Court has recognized limited exceptions 
to the prohibition to midterm increases in compensation.  For example, an 
exception exists when “additional duties, extrinsic or not germane to the office, 
have been imposed in conjunction with the increase in compensation.”  Id. (citing 
Mooney v. County of St. Louis, 286 S.W.2d 763, 766 (Mo. 1956)).  Further, this 
constitutional prohibition “does not apply when compensation is not fixed for the 
office at the commencement of the term, because nonexistent compensation 
cannot be increased.”  Id. (citing State ex rel. Dwyer v. Nolte, 351 Mo. 271, 172 
S.W.2d 854, 856-57 (Mo. 1943)).   
George relies heavily on State ex rel. Moss v. Hamilton, 303 Mo. 302, 260 
S.W. 466 (Mo. banc 1924), which sets forth another exception.  In Moss, the 
relator was elected Crawford County circuit court clerk in November 1918.  The 
relator’s term began January 1, 1919, and extended through December 31, 1922.  
The relator’s salary was established by a statute enacted in 1915, that tied the 
salary of the circuit clerk to the population of the county.  The statute contained a 
formula that calculated the county population by determining the number of votes 
cast in the presidential election, multiplying that number by five, and fixing the 
 
5
circuit clerk’s salary depending on the result.  During the first two years of his 
term, the relator’s salary was $1,600 per annum based upon the statutory formula 
using figures from the 1916 presidential election.  After the 1920 presidential 
election, an application of the statutory formula would have entitled the relator to 
receive a salary of $1,950 per annum for the remaining two years of his term.  Yet, 
the relator received only $1,600 per annum for all four years of his term.  At the 
end of his term in office, the relator filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel 
the payment of $700, which was the difference between what he earned and what 
he would have earned had he received the increase in salary after the 1920 
presidential election.  Id. at 467-68. 
 
This Court found the 1915 statutory act was in effect when the relator was 
elected; therefore, the relator’s salary “was fixed for his whole term, but was not in 
named dollars and cents for the whole term” and did not violate the prohibition 
against midterm compensation increases.  Id. at 469-70.  This Court explained: 
The effect of this act of 1915 was to say to relator, “Your salary shall 
be determined upon the presidential vote of 1916, until there is 
another presidential election, at which time your county may be in a 
lower [or] a higher class, according to the population indicated by 
the presidential vote.”  The salary, in amount, was fixed by law as to 
relator’s office in any event.  If his county was not subjected to a 
change of class, his salary was not changed.  If his county (by a 
decreased population) dropped to a lower class, his salary was fixed, 
and was fixed before his election, although the change of class might 
give[] him a different amount.  So too, if his county increased in 
population and thereby passed to a higher class, the existing law 
(that in force at the time of his election) fixed for him a salary.  True 
it was higher, but it was definitely fixed at the date of his election.   
 
 
6
Id.  After finding that the relator’s salary was fixed before his election, and 
rejecting the county’s equitable estoppel argument, this Court approved the 
midterm increase in the relator’s salary.  Id. at 471. 
Respondents recognize these exceptions to the constitutional prohibition on 
midterm compensation increases exist, but argue that none of them applies to 
George’s claim.  Specifically, Respondents contend Moss is distinguishable 
because the reclassification of the county is what prompted the midterm pay 
increase in Moss and Phelps County was not reclassified here.  Moss itself 
addressed this concern by shifting the focus from the county reclassification to the 
statutory formula, explaining, “The mere fact that a county passed from one class 
to the other does not deprive the holder of the office of the salary fixed by law, and 
fixed too, at a time long prior to relator’s election.”  Id. at 470. 
Like in Moss, there is a statutory formula or mechanism in place here that 
establishes the salary of prosecuting attorneys by tying it to associate circuit judge 
compensation, although not in “named dollars and cents.”  Article XIII, section 3, 
subsection 8 requires that the Commission meet every two years to review, study, 
and fix compensation for all elected state officials, members of the general 
assembly, and all judges, except municipal judges.  After conducting its review, 
the Commission must file a schedule of compensation no later than December 1st 
of that year.  This schedule of compensation shall become effective unless 
disapproved by a concurrent resolution adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of 
the General Assembly before February 1st of the year following the filing of the 
 
7
schedule.  If the General Assembly takes no action, the schedule of compensation 
shall apply and represents the compensation for each affected person beginning on 
July 1st following the filing of the schedule.   
It is undisputed that this constitutional mechanism for establishing the 
compensation for an associate circuit judge was in place before George was 
elected or took office as the full-time prosecuting attorney of Phelps County.  The 
fact that the formula did not specify the “dollars and cents” of George’s 
compensation did not preclude her from receiving the increase per this Court’s 
holding in Moss.  Because the General Assembly took no action to disapprove the 
Commission’s schedule of compensation filed December 1, 2006, the increases in 
compensation the Commission recommended for associate circuit judges took 
effect July 1, 2007, and July 1, 2008, respectively.  Section 56.265.1(1) ties the 
salary of a full-time prosecutor to that of an associate circuit judge by requiring 
that their compensation shall be equal.  This Court must assume the General 
Assembly is fully cognizant of the constitutional limitation against increasing the 
compensation of a state officer during his or her term in office when enacting 
legislation.  Mooney, 286 S.W.2d at 766.   
Conclusion 
 
George was entitled to an increase in her compensation as the full-time 
prosecuting attorney of Phelps County because the increase resulted from the 
application of a statutory formula for calculating compensation that was in place 
before she was elected or took office.  Accordingly, this increase in compensation 
 
8
 
9
did not violate article VII, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution per the holding 
in Moss.   
 
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.  On remand, the circuit 
court shall calculate the underpayment to George and issue its writ directing 
Respondents to pay the calculated amount and grant any other relief to which 
George is entitled. 
 
______________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JUDGE 
 
All concur.