JIM MATTOX Attorney General
Supreme Court Buffdin P. 0. BOX 12949 Aw,tih. TX. 7971% 2549 51214752501 Telex 8101874-1397 Telecoplar 51214750266

714 Jackwn, Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 752024S99 214l742-9944
4824 Alberta Ave.. SuitS 180 El Paso. TX. 799052793 91-

1001 Texas, Suite MO Houston, lx 77w2a111 71312236999 806 Broadway.Sulte

312 Lubb%k. TX. 79401-3479 9ow747-5239
4309 N. Tenth, Suite 6 McAllen, TX. 79501-1885 512m&?*S47
290 Main Plaza. Suite 400 sari Antonio. TX. 792U52797 512l225419l

An Equal OppWtunitYl Afflrmatiw Action EfIlPlOYer 

## The Attorney General of Texas
F&cuary 21. 1986

Emotablt DanielW. Shindlar District

Attorney P. 0. Drawer 2280 Bay City, Texas ,7'1414 opinion No. a-442 Et: Whetheran elected mayor may receivea salary increaseat any time during

his term Dear Mr. Shindler: You ask whet&r an elected mayor of a general law city may receivea salary increase at any time duringhis term or whether any such increase

must take effect in the two-year term subsequent



### to that during which the salary increase was adopted. We conclude that article 1010, V.T.C..S., acts as an absolute impediment to the mayor receiving an incraastin salaryduringhis tern. Article 1010.V.T.C.S., providesthe follouiug: The city couucilshall,on or before the first day of January next precedingeach election,fix the salary aa'd fees of office of the mayor to be elected Ict

the next regular election, and fix the comptnsaM.on

to be paid to the officers electedor appointed

by the city council. The compensation so fixed shallnot be changedduring the term for whfch sa:3 officers shallbe elected

or appointed. (Emphasir~

added). It has been suggested that courts have construed the date provisions of the statutory

pztrdtcessors

of article 1010 to be permissive and not mandatory; therefore,it is suggested, a salary increaseadopted at any time during izhe mayor's term is effective for that term not withstanding

the plain terms of the statute. We disagree with this construction

of the cases construing article 1010 and concludethat the plain terms of article 1010 prohibitsuch an increase. There is a :L:Lna

of casts which hold that the provisions of article 1010 whic:h. require city council action on or before the January 1 next preceding each election are directory and not mandatory;

none hold, however,that a salary increase may be approved

and made effective

during the term of office of the officer whose salary is to be increased. As the court in City of Uvalde v. Burney. 145 S.W. 311. 312 (Tex.Civ. App. - San Antonio 1912,no writ) declared:

p. 2013Eonorable DanielW. Shindlel, - Page 2 (JM-442)

The law in question is affirmativein requiring that the salarlelr of the city officers shall be fixed at a certain time, and we think [it] is merely directory. It will be presumed that the [llegislature

intruded

what was reasouable, and it would not cripple, or completelybreak down, a municipal

corpora:ion

by a failureto name salaries at a certain tiacz. The time is not essentialto the perfect operetion of the law, and there is reallybut one maidatory provision

in it, and that is that when theysalary has been once fixed or established

it shztl uot be changed during the term for which the o&cer was elected or appointed. That provision 1; negativelyexpressed,and mst necessarily

be ma&atory. The -directions as to the time at which t1.e appropriation

for the salaries should be made is :not

of the essenceof the duty to be performed;

the main object of the law being to preventan iucreas,e in salaryduringthe incumbeacy la office. (Emphasis added).

(Tex.Civ. App. 137 S.W. 417 (Tax.Civ. App. - Austin 1911,no writ). Neitherarticle 1010 (nor Its prtdectsso~s) uor the casts construing the statute permit the aalaryof a mayor to be increased and made effective

during that officer's

term. We must interpret the statutein a way which expresses

only the will of the makers of the law, not forced aor cjtraintd, but simply such as the words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanction

and will.

clearlysustain. Railroad Commissionof Tenas v. Miller. 434 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex. 1968). The plain terms ofythe statuteclearlyforbidany increasela compensation

during the tam for which the mayor is elected.

SUMMARY The salaryof a mayor of a ganerallaw city may aot be incrsasedduring the term for which the mayor is elected.

JIM HATTOX Attorney

Ceaeralof Texas

p. 2014Bonorable DanielW. Shindltr - Page 3 (JM-442)

JACKHIGETOWER FirstAssistant

Attorney

Gentera MARY KELLER Executive

Assistant

Attorney

General ROBERTGRA-f Special

Assistant

Attorney Zzneral RICK GILPIN Chairman.

OpinionCommittee Prepared

by Jim Moellinger Assistant

Attorney

General

p. 2015