- gd’-- ,‘

.

. ..

The Honorable Arthur C. Eads

County Attorney Bell County Courthouse P. 0. Box 474 Belton, Texas 76513
Dear Mr. Eads: Opinion No. H-860
Re: Payment for accumulated sick leave to county officers and employees.

You have requested our opinion regarding whether elected county and precinct officials of Bell County may be compensated forunused sick leave. You state that, inDecember, 1960, the commissioners court of Bell County provided by resolution that elected and appointed employees and officials shall accrue sick leave, and thatpersons whose employment is terminated are entitled to compensation forunused sick leave of up to 75days. There isno question that the resolution was proper with regard to "employees." V.T.C.S. art. 2372h-1; Attorney General Opinion H-797 (1976). Furthermore, since January 1, 1972, the effective date of article 3912k,V.T.C.S., a county has been empowered to:

[F]ixthe amount of compensation, office expense, travel expense, and all other allowances for county andpre=ct officials and employees who arepaid wholly from county funds~.
. . .~ Sec. 1. (Emphasis added). Thus, at least since January 1, 1972, the commissioners court of Bell County has been authorized toprovide sick leave to elected county and precinct officials, and, by extension, to compensate those officials for theunused portion of any sick leave earned after that date.

p.3627.

The Honorable Arthur C. Eads -page 2 (H-860)

Prior to the effective date of article 3912k, no statute furnished specific authority for the accrual of sick leave by county and precinct officials. Article 3912i,V.T.C.S., however, which was in effect in 1960, provided that the commissioners court of each county in apopulation bracket of 46,000 to 98,000

shall fix the salaries of theprecinct officials named in thisAct atnot **more** than Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000)per annum. Sec. 3. (Emphasis added). Furthermore, article 3912q,V.T.C.S., and section 15of article 3912i permitted the commissioners court to increase the compensation of these precinct officials. Article 3883i, V.T.C.S., provided that the commissioners court of each county in a similar population bracket

:i of shall fix the salaries of the county and

district officials named in thisAct at notmore than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000)per annum. . . . Sec. 3. (Emphasis added). addition, the commissioners court was empowered **by** section of article 3883i to "increase themaximum compensation each officer" designated therein.
Inour opinion, these statutes, authorizing the commissioners **COUrt** to rix **SalarleS** or COUnty and precinct officials, were sufficient authority for the commissioners court toprovide for the accrual of sick leave by those officials, and to compensate them for the unused portion of any such sick leave. InAttorney General Opinion M-1252 (19721, this Office found that compensation for unused vacation time constitutes payment of IIsalary." InHairston v. Richie, 338 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.Civ. App. -- Fort Krth0, nowrit), the court held that

' salary' isrecompense for services, and is synonymous with 'ailowance.'

p.3628The Honorable Arthur C. Eads -page 3(H-860)

We believe that sick leavemay be embraced within the ambit of that 'salary'which a commissioners court, prior to the enactment of article 3912k,was authorized to fix for county and precinct officials. We note, however, that the statutes specified amaximum limitation on the salaries of those officials, and that the total of actual wages paid, together with thevalue of sick leave accrued should not have exceeded the statutory maximum foranyparticular official. Subject to that limitation, it isour opinion that the commissioners court, prior toJanuary 1, 1972,was empowered toprovide sick leave for the ,variouscounty andprecinct officials about which you inquire, and that the commissioners court is presently authorized to compensate those officials for the unused portion of any sick leave earned during that period.
Your second question iswhether county andprecinct officials are entitled toreceive interest on theirmatured but unpaid claims foraccrued sick leave. InWalker v. State, 103 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex.Civ. App. --Waco 19n, no m, the court held that

[i]tisavery well-established rule that a State isnot liable for interest in the absence of a statute or express contract providing for thepayment thereof.
See also State v. El Paso Natural Gas CO., 300 S.W.2d 170,

--- m (Tex.Civ. App. --Austin 195 -- 7,nowrit]. Although no Texas case appears tohave ruled on the liability of a county for interest, the "general rule" in the United States is that a county

cannot, as aunit of government and arm of the state, be held liable for interest on anobligation, unless a contractual or statutory provision in terms provides for such liability. 56Am. Jur.Zd, Municipal Corporations at 826, and authorities cited therein.
It is, therefore, our opinion that county and precinct officials are not entitled topayment of interest on their matured but unpaid claims for accrued sick leave.

p.3629The Honorable Arthur C. Eads -page 4 (H-869)

SUMMARY Subject to the limitation that the total of actual wages paid, together with the value of sick leave granted, did not exceed the statutory **maximum** forany particular county orprecinct official, the commissioners courts, prior to the enactment of article 3912k,V.T.C.S.,~ were authorized toprovide sick leave for such officials, and arepresently authorized to compensate those officials for the unused portion of any sick leave earned during thatperiod. County and precinct officials are not entitled to payment of interest on theirmatured but unpaid claims for accrued sick leave. Very **truly** yours,

era1 of Texas

Opinion Committee jwb

**p. 3630**