### ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS GREG ABBOTT

March 12,2004

The Honorable Tempie T. Francis Motley County Attorney P. 0. Box 7 Matador, Texas 79244 Opinion No. GA-O162 Re: Whether, if a county commissioners court invalidly set the county sheriff’s salary at an amount higher than the increased proposed salary listed in the published notice, the county may pay the sheriff only the salary he received in the previous budget year (RQ-0108-GA) Dear Ms. Francis: You ask whether, ifthe Motley County Commissioners Court (the “Commissioners Court”) invalidly setthe county sheriffs salary atan amount higher than the increased proposed salary listed in the published notice, the county may pay the sheriff only the salary he received in the previous budget year. ’ You state that, in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the Motley County Sheriff (the “Sheriff’) received an annual county salary of $21,440. See Request Letter, supra note 1,at2. On August 7, 2003, the Commissioners Court published notice ofaproposed increase inthe county sheriffs salary inthe local newspaper, the Motley County Tribune, in accordance with section 152.0 13ofthe Local Government Code. See id.2 The notice indicated that the county proposed increasing the Sheriffs salary for the 2003-2004 fiscal year to $24,000. See id. When the Commissioners Court adopted the budget, the budget included an annual salary of $25,826 for the Sheriff. See id. In aletter tothis office, the Sheriff indicates that the Commissioners Court actually approved this higher salary ($25,836) “before the notice was published” atabudget workshop held on July 31. Sheriffs Letter, supra note 2, at 1. The Sheriff further states that the County Judge “incorrectly tiled and posted an amount lower than that which the Commissioners had voted on.” Id. The increase

‘See Letter from Honorable Tempie T. Francis, Motley County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General, at 1(Sept. 10, 2003) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter]; see also Letter from Honorable Tempie T. Francis, Motley County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General, at 1(Oct. 13,2003) (on file with Opinion Committee). 2See also Letter from Honorable James B. “Jim” Meador, Motley County Sheriff, to Nancy S. Fuller, Chair, Opinion Committee, Offke ofthe Attorney General, at l-2 (Oct. 10,2003) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Sheriffs Letter].The Honorable Tempie T. Francis - Page 2 (GA-0162)

in the Sheriffs salary was not discussed at the budget hearing on August 26, 2003, at which the budget was finally adopted. See id. at 2. Section 152.013(a) of the Local Government Code requires a county commissioners court to set elected county officers’ salaries “at aregular meeting of the court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings.” TEX.Lot. GOV’T CODEANN. 5 152.013(a) (Vernon 1999). Subsection (b)requires acommissioners court topublish special notice ofproposed salary increases: Before the 10th day before the date of the meeting, the commissioners court must publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the county anotice of:

(1) any salaries, expenses, or allowances that are proposed to be increased; and (2) the amount of the proposed increases. Id. 8 152.013(b). Elected county officers’ salaries may be changed “only once ayear.” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0147 (1999) at 1. Based on section 152.013(a)% plain language, this office “has repeatedly concluded” that a county commissioners court may consider and adopt elected county officers’ salaries only during “the regular, annual budget hearing and adoption proceedings.” Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-018, at2; see, e.g., Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-839 (1988) at 6,JM-326 (1985) at4,H-l 1 (1973) at4. A county commissioners court may not change elected county officers’ salaries “at any other time.” Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-018, at 2. This office also has determined that the required notice, posted under section 152.013(b), must inform the public ofthe “maximum potential salary increases for elected county. ..officials.” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0255 (2000) at 5. The section thereby “provides amechanism for the public to scrutinize proposed salary increases for elected county and precinct officers” by requiring notice “of the potential amount of salary increases rather than just the mere fact that the commissioners court is considering increasing the salaries.” Id. at 3. Salary increases above the published proposals are invalid because the public had insufficient notice. See id. at 5. Because acommissioners court may not adopt salaries at ameeting outside ofthe “regular, annual budget hearing and adoption proceedings,” a commissioners court that failed to publish proper notice has “no legal mechanism” by which to remedy an error after the budget has been finally adopted. Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-01 8, at2. “As aresult, county officers’ salaries
. . .must remain at last year’s level until the next budget cycle.” Id. Accordingly, the salary adopted in the budget, $25,826, is invalid. The public had not received proper notice, as required by section 152.013(b), of that increase. The fact that the Commissioners Court had approved that amount in itsbudget workshop did not suffice because the notice listed $24,000 as the proposed increased salary.The Honorable Tempie T. Francis - Page 3 (GA-0162)

Moreover, the Sheriff may not receive the amount that was published in the notice, $24,000. Acommissioners court may act only by adopting anofficial order. See Garcia v.Duval County, 354 S.W.2d 237,239 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1962, writ ref dn.r.e.). Here, the Commissioners Court did not vote, at its “regular meeting
. . . during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings,” to provide the Sheriff with a salary of $24,000. TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODEANN. 5 152.013(a) (Vemon 1999). Thus, the Sheriff may receive a salary only equal to the amount he received in the prior fiscal year, $21,440. You also ask how the Commissioners Court may now increase the sheriffs salary, to either the published amount, $24,000, or the adopted amount, $25,826. In accordance with our prior opinions, we conclude that the Commissioners Court may not increase the Sheriffs salary until the next budget is properly adopted. See Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-01 8, at 2.The Honorable Tempie T. Francis - Page 4 (GA-0162)

SUMMARY The Motley County Commissioners Court, which adopted a budget including a salary for the County Sheriff higher than that posted in the notice required by section 152.013(b) of the Local Government Code, may pay the Sheriff only the salary he received in the prior budget year. See TEX.Lot. GOV’TCODE ANN.8152.013(b) (Vernon 1999). Because of the improper notice, the amount in the adopted budget is invalid. Additionally, the County may not pay the Sheriff the increased proposed salary listed in the published notice because the Commissioners Court didnot vote, atits“regular meeting

. . . during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings,” to provide the Sheriff with that salary. Id. 4 152.013(a). The Commissioners Court may not increase the Sheriffs salary until the next budget is properly adopted. Very truly yours,

eneral of Texas

BARRY R. MCBEE First Assistant Attorney General DON R. WILLETT Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel NANCY S. FULLER Chair, Opinion Committee Kymberly K. Oltrogge Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee