If North Carolina raises the Property Tax Commission's per-day pay to a near full-time salary, can a sitting county manager still serve on the Commission, or does the higher pay trigger the dual-office-holding bar?
Plain-English summary
Janet Shires, Secretary of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission, wrote in early 1996 explaining that the Commission's caseload had grown sharply since 1979 (when the pay rates were last set at $200 per day plus $55 daily expenses), and that the Commission was considering legislation to raise pay to $500 per week base, $500 per hearing day, capped at $51,366 annually, with per diem expenses bumped to $75.
The Commission worried that one of its members, who was also a county manager, might be disqualified by the higher pay under North Carolina's dual-office-holding restrictions.
Senior Deputy AG Reginald Watkins and Special Deputy AG George Boylan replied with two messages.
Legal answer: the higher pay changes nothing. The 1995 AG opinion (referenced as issued January 27, 1995) had already concluded that dual-office-holding prohibitions do not disqualify a county manager from also serving on the Property Tax Commission. The 1996 opinion ratifies that conclusion and extends it across compensation levels. "Generally, no dual office holding restrictions arise simply by virtue of the remuneration provided by each office. More specifically, the eligibility of a county manager for appointment to the Commission is not dependent upon the amount of the employee's governmental salary."
Translation: the dual-office analysis turns on whether two offices are incompatible as a matter of law (constitutional Article VI, § 9 separation, statutory restrictions on certain combinations), not on whether the cumulative pay is high. The opinion concludes that the proposed compensation package, "whatever its scope, technically cannot jeopardize the continued membership" of a sitting county-manager member.
Practical answer: this is a county-policy problem, not a legal problem. The opinion shifts to the harder issues the county will face. With Commission compensation reaching the level of a full-time second salary, several practical problems arise:
- Time allocation. If the manager is drawing Commission pay during hours he is also being paid by the county, the county is paying him for hours he is not working for it. The county needs internal rules on this.
- Equity within the county workforce. Other county employees might point to the manager's part-time arrangement and request similar accommodations. The county needs a policy on what employees can take extensive part-time outside paid work.
- Public perception. The opinion uses the phrase "potentially embarrassing perception of double-dipping." Two government salaries reaching tens of thousands of dollars each looks like double-dipping even if the technical hours and duties do not overlap.
A recommended resource. The opinion suggests the county work with the State and Local Government Finance Division within the Department of State Treasurer to develop accounting and fiscal procedures that document the manager's time allocation, prevent payment overlap, and create a clear audit trail.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. North Carolina's dual-office-holding doctrine has been refined by subsequent appellate decisions and AG opinions, and county manager compensation structures have changed substantially. Any sitting county manager considering an additional state appointment should consult current AG guidance and county-level personnel policy.
Background and statutory framework
North Carolina's dual-office-holding restrictions trace to Article VI, § 9 of the state constitution, which forbids one person from holding more than one office of profit or trust under the State at the same time, with specified exceptions. The doctrine has been interpreted to apply to true offices (statutorily defined positions with sovereign authority) rather than to mere employment, but the lines can blur. County manager is typically classified as an employment position rather than a constitutional office, though some sources have argued otherwise. Property Tax Commission membership is an office.
The Property Tax Commission, established under § 105-288, hears appeals from county property tax decisions. Its workload depends on the volume of property tax disputes in a given year, which spiked in the early 1990s as appraisal cycles in major counties produced waves of appeals. By 1996, the Commission was hearing complex commercial-property cases that could last days, with industry-specific expertise required from members. The 1979 daily-pay structure had become inadequate to attract qualified members, especially attorneys and appraisers whose hourly value far exceeded $200/day.
The 1995 AG opinion the 1996 opinion references is the underlying authority for the dual-office holding analysis. That opinion (which would be at file with the AG and with the Commission's records) concluded that county-manager service plus Property Tax Commission membership did not trigger the dual-office bar. The compensation-increase question in 1996 was essentially a "does our prior answer still hold?" inquiry. The AG said yes.
The opinion's pivot to county-policy concerns is notable. Most AG opinions stop at the legal conclusion. This one continues into the soft territory of administrative ethics, time allocation, and public perception. That extension was probably driven by the Commission's worry that its proposed pay package would face political backlash if it appeared to let one member draw two effectively full-time public salaries. The AG used the opportunity to flag that risk and direct the county to think through the practical management of the arrangement.
Common questions
What if the county manager's time spent on Commission business overlapped with his county work hours?
The legal answer remains the same: no dual-office bar. But the practical problem the opinion identifies is real. If the manager is being paid by the Commission for hearings during business hours, and is also drawing his county salary for those same hours, the county is effectively paying for time the manager is not working. The county can address this through unpaid leave for Commission days, vacation time, or a salary offset, but it cannot ignore it without inviting an audit finding.
Would the analysis change if the manager were elected (county commissioner) rather than appointed (county manager)?
Probably yes. Elected county commissioner is more likely to be classified as a constitutional office of profit or trust, and the dual-office bar would more likely apply. The opinion is specifically about a county manager, an employment position.
Could the Commission cap a member's pay if the cumulative annual amount looked excessive?
The opinion does not address pay caps directly. The bill's proposed cap was $51,366 (a deliberately specific number, presumably aligned to some other state pay benchmark). Whether the cap would apply per fiscal year or per calendar year, and whether it would cover both base pay and per diem, are statutory drafting questions the Commission would have to resolve before introducing the bill.
Did the General Assembly pass the proposed compensation increase?
The opinion does not say. Tracking the bill through 1996 session laws would confirm what actually passed.
Is the State and Local Government Finance Division still the right resource for these accounting questions?
The opinion was directing the county to a 1996 organizational structure. The State and Local Government Finance Division has been reorganized within the State Treasurer's office multiple times. The current resource for county finance and personnel guidance is the Local Government Commission, the State Treasurer's office's local-finance staff, and the School of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill.
What if the county manager simply resigned from the Commission once the pay went up?
That would moot the question. The opinion is essentially defensive guidance for a member who wants to stay. Resignation is always an option if the time commitment outgrows the manager's capacity to balance both roles.
Source
- Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/effect-of-increased-compensation-for-commission-members-upon-dual-office/
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-288
Original opinion text
March 18, 1996
Janet L. Shires, Secretary
Property Tax Commission
Post Office Box 871
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Re: Advisory Opinion; North Carolina Property Tax Commission; Effect of increased compensation for commission members upon dual office holding restrictions; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-288(d).
Dear Ms. Shires:
From your letter of 15 February 1996 and accompanying materials we understand that members of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission ("Commission") are paid $200 per day, plus $55 daily for expenses. You indicate that the number of appeals filed with the Commission, as well as their complexity, has dramatically increased in recent years. Given its burgeoning caseload and its level of compensation which has not increased since 1979, the Commission is concerned about its ability to attract qualified individuals to serve as members in the future. To address this possible situation, the Commission is considering requesting legislation which in part would raise compensation to $500 per week, plus $500 for each day of hearings, not to exceed $51,366, and which would increase per diem expenses to $75.
In deference to the Commission's present membership, before proceeding with legislation along these lines, you request our opinion as to "whether a county manger may continue to serve on the Property Tax Commission if the level of compensation is increased or paid as a salary?"
The answer to your inquiry was foreshadowed in our Advisory Opinion issued 27 January 1995 where we advised that dual office holding prohibitions do not disqualify a county manager from also serving on the Property Tax Commission. The extent of the requested compensation increase suggests that at some point the county member likely will draw the equivalent of two full-time salaries, with attendant demands upon his time. Generally, no dual office holding restrictions arise simply by virtue of the remuneration provided by each office. More specifically, the eligibility of a county manager for appointment to the Commission is not dependent upon the amount of the employee's governmental salary. In short, the Commission's proposed compensation package, whatever its scope, technically cannot jeopardize the continued membership of an individual who happens also to be employed as a county manager.
Ultimately your question depends not so much upon a discrete legal analysis of principles involving dual office holding, but instead, what constitutes good "county" policy. The anticipated increased compensation to proportions of a full time salary creates a host of administrative and policy issues that the member's employer will need to resolve locally. For instance, the county will need to address how it will handle requests from other employees to also work extensive part-time jobs, or, what measures the county will need to implement to ensure that its manager is not paid county funds for performing duties while simultaneously receiving compensation and benefits from the Commission for the same period. Perhaps the State and Local Government Finance Division within the Department of State Treasurer could assist the county in developing accounting guidelines and other fiscal procedures to prevent the potentially embarrassing perception of double-dipping.
We hope the foregoing is helpful.
Reginald L. Watkins
Senior Deputy Attorney General
George W. Boylan
Special Deputy Attorney General