. 

. - 

Hon. Iz. L. ‘Shelton 

County Auditor 

Johnson County 

Cleburne, Texas 

Dear Sir; 

opinion No. O-5053 

Be: Should the county auditor 

approve the salary warrants of 

county officials under the facts 

stated? 

Your letter of January 12, 1943, requesting the 

opinion of this department on the question stated therein 

reads in part as follows: 

“When the County budget was prepared and 

ap 

f: 

roved on October 10, 1942 covering the year 

19 3 certain officials salaries were set in the 

budget at certain amounts. When the day of setting salaries for officers as provided by the 

Officers’ Salary Bill, on the ,first regular 

meeting day in January 1943 some of these salaries were set in excess of the approved budgat.‘~ 

Is this permissible and must the County Auditor 

approve the salaries set in January at the 

amounts in excess of the approved budget? 

,t 

. . . . 

II 

Your letter of January 15, 1943, supplementing your 

letter of January 12, 1943, is in part as followsr 

“I wish to thank you very much for your prompt 

reply to my letter of 12th inst ., enclosing copies 

of Opinions Eos. O-07 and O-327 but I do not think 

that these opinions cover the particular case under 

considerat ion. Probably 1~ should have been more 

explicit. 

“To give you a better understaqding of the 

situation; on August 28, 1942 the Commissioners’ 

Court had a hearing and adopted the budget for the 

‘year 1943. The court that adopted this budget is 

the same new court With the exception of one commissioner, and they ara aware of the prevailing condltions. They set the budget for three of the elected 

officials then as follows: one for $3,000.00, one 
- -. _ 

Hon. E. L. Shelton, page 2 (o-5053) 

for $3,230.00 and one for $1,800.00. When they 

met on January 11th this year, without any notice whatever they raised these three salaries, 

two to the maximum for Johnson County and one an 

additional $200.00. 

“In your opinions you quote the law as to 

grave emergencies the budget can be amended. You 

can readily see that this does not apply to the 

salary of any deputy and besides it occurs to us 

that there is no grave emergency, this could have 

all be ascertained at the time of adopting the 

budget and had it been done then we would not have 

raised the question. 

“In addition to the emergency clause, there 

are not sufficient funds to meet the payments of 

increase. Just this last year the fund carried a 

deficit of &,384.33 and in no prior year has the 

fund been less than $5,000.00 in the red at the 

end of the year which has been supplemented each 

year by transfer from the General Fund of the 

county. 

“The offices under consideration, two, the 

County Judge and the County Clerk. Not until last 

year have these two offices ever paid their way 

but owing to the excessive demand for delayed birth 

certificates each office received approxi.mately 

$2,000.00 additional fees this past year but this 

has about reached the saturation point and when it 

does this addition& fees will cease. 

“If this information is not sufficient we shall 

be glad to furnish more but we believe this will 

enable you to better understand the situation and 

our position. 

‘1. . . . 

“P.S. 

“1 understand the Court is meeting today to 

amend the budget to take care of this previous action.” 

Johnson County has a population of 30,361 inhabitants 

according to the l&O Federal Census, therefore, the county officials of said county must be compensated on an annual salary 

basis as required by Section 13 of Article 3912e Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes. 
. -- 

Hon. E* L. Shelton, page 3 (0-5053) 

Section 13 of Article 3912e, supra, fixed the salary 

of each county official named therein in the class of counties 

in which Johnson County falls, at not less than the total sum 

earned by him in his official capacity for the fiscal year 

1935 and not more than the maximum amount allowed such officer 

under laws existing on August 24 1935. (See the cases of 

Nacogdoches County v. Winder 146 S.W. (2) 9’72 and Nacogdoches 

county V. Jinkins, 140 S.W. t2) 901). 

It is the duty of the commissioners’ court, under 

the salary law, to fix the annual salaries of the county officials in their respective counties, within the statutory limits, at their first regular meeting in January. The county 

budget is prepared prior to the time when the salaries of the 

county officials are fixed. The budget law (Article 689a-11, 

Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes) requires the county judge 

after the adoption of the county budget and prior to October 

15th of each year, to file with the State Comptroller at Austin, 

Texas a true and correct summarized statement of the adopted 

budge i showing the total amount adopted for each of the several 

divisions of the county’s activities and outstanding obligations and other things as mentioned in said statute. However, 

this statute (Article 689a-11, supra) does not authorize the 

commissioners1 court to fix the salaries of the county officials. County officials who are compensated on an annual salary basis under the salary law are paid out of the Officers’ 

Salary Fund. Paragraph (b), Section 6, Article 3912e, Vernon’s 

Annotated Civil Statutes, authorizes the commissioners’ court 

to transfer from the general fund of the county to the Officers’ Salary Fund or Funds of such county, such funds as may 

be necessary to pay the salaries and other claims chargeable 

against the same when the moneys deposited therein are insufficient to meet the claims payable therefrom. 

It is our opinion that in preparing the county budget 

the commissioners’ court should anticipate, if possible, the 

amount that the Officers’ Salary Fund would have to be supplemented from the General Fund, if any, and make provisions 

therefor in the budget. However, the moneys deposited in the 

Officers’ Salary Fund as required by the salary law may be 

sufficient to pay or meet all claims payable therefrom. If 

this be true, then it would be unnecessary to supplement the 

Officers’ Salary Fund from the General’Fund. As it is the duty 

of the commissioners1 court, as above stated, to fix the salaries of the county officials at its first meeting in January, 

if at this time, the annual salaries of the county officials 

are fixed within the statutory limits, you should approve the 

salary warrant despite the budget provisions fixed by the 

court. 
Hon. E. L. Shelton, page 4 (O-5053) 

We enclose herewith the copy of the minutes of the 

commissioners' court enclosed with your inquiry. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By /s/ &dell Williams 

Ardell Williams, Assistant 

APPROVED FEB 2, 1943 

/s/ Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENUAL 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITl'K3 

BY: BWB, Chairman 

AW:mp:wb 

Encl.