The Attorney General of Texas 

December 1, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Richard Handorf 

District Attorney pro tern for Anderson, 

Henderson and Houston Counties 

Palestine, Texas 75801 

Opinion No. H-12 6 6 

Re: Whether the salary of the 

county auditor may be raised 

before the beginning of the fiscal 

year. 

Dear Mr. Handorf: 

You have requested our opinion as to whether the salary of the county 

auditor of Henderson County may be increased prior to the beginning of the 

next fiical year. 

Article 1645, V.T.C.S., applicable to Henderson County, provides: 

In any county having a population of 35,000 

inhabitants or over according to the last preceding 

Federal Census, or having a tax valuation of 

$15,000,000 or over according to the last approved tax 

rolls, there shall be appointed every two years an 

auditor of accounts and finances, the title of said 

office to be County Auditor, who shall hold his office 

for two years and who shall receive as compensation 

for his services an annual salary from the County 

General Fund of not more than the amount allowed or 

paid the Assessor-Collector of Taxes in his county, 

such salary of the County Auditor to be fixed and 

determined by the District Judge or District Judges 

making such appointment and having jurisdiction in the 

county, a majority ruling, said annual salary to be paid 

monthly out of the General Fund of the county. The 

action of the District Judge or District Judges in 

determining and fixing the salary of the County 

Auditor shall be made by order and recorded in the 

minutes of the District Court of the county and the 

Clerk thereof shall certify the same for observance to 

the Commissioners Court which shall cause the same 

to be recorded in its minutes. 

p. 5014 
Honorable Richard Handorf - Page 2 (Ii-12661 

In Attorney General Opinion V-1220 (1951), this office held that the salary of a 

county auditor could not be altered until the beginning of the following fiscal year. 

The conclusion was based, however, upon the following language of article 1645: 

[Alfter the salary of the County Auditor has been fixed by 

the District Judge or District Judges, no change in such 

salary shall thereafter become effective until the beginning 

of the next ensuing fiscal year of the county. 

In 1955, this provision was removed from article 1645. Acts 1955, 54th Leg., ch. 414, 

S 1, at ll17. As the statute now reads, the auditor’s salary is “to be fixed and 

determined by the District Judge or District Judges,” with no restrictions placed on 

that determination, except that the auditor’s salary may not exceed that of the 

county tax assessor-collector. 

It is thus apparent that the intent of the Legislature was that article 1645 not 

preclude the district judges of Henderson County from increasing the salary of the 

auditor at any time, up to the amount of compensation then being paid to the tax 

assessor-ollector. In our opinion, therefore, the salary of the county auditor of 

Henderson County may be increased prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year 

to any amount not exceeding the present salary of the tax assessor-collector of 

Henderson County. 

SUMMARY 

The salary of the county auditor of Henderson County~ may 

be increased at any time, so long as it does not exceed the 

salary of the tax assessor-collector of Henderson County. 

Very truly yours, 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

p. 5015