- 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 

for unused sick leave. You state that, in December, 1960, 

the commissioners court of Bell County provided by resolution 

that elected and appointed employees and officials shall 

accrue sick leave, and that persons whose employment is 

terminated are entitled to compensation for unused sick 

leave of up to 75 days. 

There is no 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]ix the amount of compensation, office 

expense, travel expense, and all other 

allowances for county and pre=ct 

officials and employees who are paid wholly 

from county funds~. . . .~ Sec. 1. (Emphasis 

added). 

Thus, at least since January 1, 1972, the commissioners court 

of Bell County has been authorized to provide sick leave to 

elected county and precinct officials, and, by extension, 

to compensate those officials for the unused 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 a population bracket of 

46,000 to 98,000 

shall fix the salaries of the precinct 

officials named in this Act at not 

more than Seven Thousand Dollars 

($7,000) per annum. Sec. 3. (Emphasis 

added). 

Furthermore, article 3912q, V.T.C.S., and section 15 of 

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 this Act at 

not more 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 the maximum compensation 

each officer" designated therein. 

In our opinion, these statutes, authorizing the 

commissioners COUrt to rix SalarleS or COUnty and precinct 

officials, were sufficient authority for the commissioners 

court to provide for the accrual of sick leave by those 

officials, and to compensate them for the unused portion of 

any such sick leave. In Attorney General Opinion M-1252 

(19721, this Office found that compensation for unused 

vacation time constitutes payment of IIsalary." In Hairston 

v. Richie, 338 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Fort 

Krth0, no writ), the court held that 

' salary' is recompense for services, 

and is synonymous with 'ailowance.' 

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

We believe that sick leave may 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 a maximum limitation on the salaries of those 

officials, and that the total of actual wages paid, together 

with the value of sick leave accrued should not have exceeded 

the statutory maximum for any particular official. Subject 

to that limitation, it is our opinion that the commissioners 

court, prior to January 1, 1972, was empowered to provide 

sick leave for the ,various county and precinct 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 is whether county and precinct 

officials are entitled to receive interest on their matured 

but unpaid claims for accrued sick leave. In Walker v. 

State, 103 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Waco 19n, no 

m, the court held that 

[i]t is a very well-established rule 

that a State is not liable for interest 

in the absence of a statute or express 

contract providing for the payment thereof. 

See also State v. El Paso Natural Gas CO., 300 S.W.2d 170, --- 

m (Tex.Civ. App. -- Austin 195 

-- 

7, no writ]. Although no 

Texas case appears to have ruled on the liability of a 

county for interest, the "general rule" in the United States 

is that a county 

cannot, as a unit of government and arm 

of the state, be held liable for interest 

on an obligation, unless a contractual or 

statutory provision in terms provides for 

such liability. 56 Am. Jur.Zd, Municipal 

Corporations at 826, and authorities 

cited therein. 

It is, therefore, our opinion that county and precinct 

officials are not entitled to payment of interest on their 

matured but unpaid claims for accrued sick leave. 

p. 3629 
The 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 for any 

particular county or precinct official, 

the commissioners courts, prior to the 

enactment of article 3912k, V.T.C.S.,~ 

were authorized to provide sick leave 

for such officials, and are presently 

authorized to compensate those officials 

for the unused portion of any sick leave 

earned during that period. County and 

precinct officials are not entitled to 

payment of interest on their matured but 

unpaid claims for accrued sick leave. 

Very truly yours, 

era1 of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3630