December 29, 1986 

Honorable Pablo Avila 

Zavala County Attorney 

Zavala County Courthouse 

Crystal City, Texas 78839 

Opinion No. JM-599 

Re: Validity of Zavala County 

personnel policy concerning salary 

of new employees 

Dear Mr. Avila: 

You request advice on a provision of the 1984 Zavala County 

Personnel and Operating Policies adopted by the Commissioners Court of 

Zavala County at their January 9, 1984 meeting. The Personnel and 

Operating Policies is a five-page document which includes provisions 

on working conditions of county employees such as sick leave, annual 

leave, holidays, and travel expenses. It also covers purchasing and 

budgeting procedures, vehicle and equipment repair and other county 

operating policies. You question the validity of the underlined 

provision on new employees: 

NEW EMPLOYEES: No vacancy in any department may 

be filled without prior Commissioners' Court 

approval. Any new/replacement employee hired 

during year salary to be $1,000 less than regular 

employee with a $1,000 increase in salary after 

six (6) months employment. (Emphasis added). 

We understand this policy to require new or replacement employees to 

work for six months before achieving the salary level of existing 

county employees in the same position. 

You first suggest that the commissioners court did not give 

adequate notice that its meeting would consider the above provision 

and, therefore, the provision was adopted in violation of the Open 

Meetings Act, article 6252-17, V.T.C.S. Section 3A of the Open 

Meetings Act requires that written notice be given of the subject of 

each meeting held by a governmental body. Actions taken by a governmental body on a matter not stated in the notice are subiect to 

judicial idvalidation. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17, §3A(a); LowCr Colorado 

River Authority v. City of San Marcos. 523 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. 

1975). 

p. 2678 
Honorable Pablo Avila - Page 2 (24-599) 

The agenda posted to give notice of the January 9, 1984 meeting 

includes the following item, under which the commissioners court 

adopted the Personnel and Operating Policies which included the 

provision on new employees: 

9. Adoption of 1984 County Personnel Policy 

and County Holidays. 

Notice of a public meeting should "alert a reader to the fact 

that some action would be considered" with resoect to the subiect in 

question. Lower Colorado River Authority v. City of San Marc&, 523 

S.W.2d 641. 646 (Tex. 1975). The courts have also said that the 

notice provisions of the Open Meetings Act are subject to substantial 

compliance. See, e.g., Coates v. Windham, 613 S.W.2d 572, 577 (Tex. 

Cl". App. - Austin 1981, no writ); McConnell v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 576 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 

1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Stelzer v. Huddleston, 526 S.W.2d 710 (Tex. 

Cl". App. - Tyler 1975, Cox Enterprises, Inc. 

v. Board of Trustees of the Austin Independent School District, 706 

S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986). The Supreme Court has recently made the 

following statement on substantial-compliance: 

We have held that general notice in certain 

cases is substantial compliance even though the 

notice is not as specific as it could be. See 

Lower Colorado River Authority v. City of G 

Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 1977), and Texas 

Turnpike Authority v. City of Fort Worth, 554 

S.W.2d 675 (Tex. 1977). However, less than full 

disclosure is not substantial compliance. OUS 

prior judgments should have served as notice to 

all public bodies that the Open Meetings Act 

requires a full disclosure of the subject matter 

of-the meetings. The Act is intended to safeguard 

the public's interest in knowing the workings of 

its governmental bodies. (Emphasis added). 

Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Austin Independent 

School District, supra. See also Texas Turnpike Authority v. City of 

Fort Worth, 554 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. 1977) (it is unnecessary to post 

copies of proposed resolutions or to state all of consequences which 

may flow from consideration of subject). 

Whether a governmental body has substantially complied with the 

notice provisions of the Open Meetings Act requires an application of 

the law to the facts of the particular case. We have set out the 

legal standards pertaining to notice, but have not been provided with 

enough information to answer your question definitively. We cannot 

p. 2679 
Honorable Pablo Avila - Page 3 (JM-599) 

investigate and resolve fact questions in the opinion process, and 

accordingly, do not answer your first question. 

Assuming that the provision on new employees' salaries was 

adopted in substantial compliance with the notice requirements of the 

Open Meetings Act, you ask whether the commissioners court has 

authority to enact and implement this policy. Article 3912k. 

V.T.C.S., provides as follows: 

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 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. 

. . . . 

Sec. 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. 

Attorney General Opinion H-11 (1973) determined that the 

commissioners court had authority under .article 3912k, V.T.C.S., to 

amend its budget to increase employees' salaries at any time of the 

year, without going through the budgeting procedures required by 

article 689a-11, V.T.C.S. This article provides in part: 

When the budget has been finally approved by the 

Commissioners' Court . . . no expenditure of the 

funds of the county shall th ereafter be made 

except in strict compliance with the budget as 

adopted by the Court. Except that emergency 

exoenditures. in case of grave public necessity, 

to' meet unusual and unfo~eseen~conditions which 

could 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. 

(Emphasis added). 

V.T.C.S. art. 689a-11. Article 3912k, section 1. V.T.C.S., provides 

an implied exception to article 689a-11 for the fixing of non-elected 

employees' salaries. Attorney General Opinion H-11 (1973). Thus, we 

p. 2680 
Honorable Pablo Avila - Page 4 (34-599) 

need not consider whether article 689a-11, V.T.C.S., even applies to 

actions by the commissioners court which reduce expenditures from the 

county budget. See V.T.C.S. art. 689a-20; Rains v. Mercantile Naticnal 

g, 188 S.W.2d798 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1945). aff'd, 191 

S.W.2d 850 (Tex. 1946). The commissioners court has authority under 

article 3912k, V.T.C.S., to reduce the compensation of new or 

replacement employees as long as the salaries are set no lower than 

they were on the January 1, 1972 effective date of the statute. 

V.T.C.S. art. 3912k, $1. See Attorney General Opinion H-39 (1973). - 

You finally ask whether the county policy, assuming that the 

county had authority to adopt it, can be applied to a deputy district 

clerk appointed by the district clerk. The coxunissioners court has 

authority to fix the salaries of deputy clerks under article 3912k, 

section -1, V.T.C.S. See Renfro v. Shropshire, 566 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. 

Cl". APP. __ - Eastlanr1978. writ ref'd n.r.e.1. Article 3902, 

V.T.C.S., however, prohibits the commissioners court from influencing 

the selection of any person as a deputy clerk. Id.; see also Attorney 

General Opinions E-1113 (1978); H-697 (1975). 

SUMMARY 

A commissioners court has authority under 

article 3912k, V.T.C.S.. to decrease the salaries 

payable to new or replacement county employees at 

any time of the year, as long as the salaries are 

set no lower than they were on January 1, 1972. 

Very truly yours, J*h . 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACK HIGHTOWER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Susan L. Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2681