i I - 

a. 

_ .x 

I ~ 

THE ATNBRNEY GENERAL 

OF%?lEXAS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

February 15, 1973 

Honorable Joe Max Shelton 

Grayson County Attorney 

104 S. Crockett 

Sherman, Texas 75090 

Dear Mr. Shelton: 

Opinion No. H-11 

Re: Under present law, can the 

Grayson County Commis s - 

ioners Court legally amend 

the 1973 County Budget and 

allow a blanket increase in 

salaries of county employees, 

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 include 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 unforeseen 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 construed as precluding the Legislature for making 

changes in the budget for state purposes or prevent 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 authority 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 Grayson 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-