When state employees get a big raise, what is the cap on a Tennessee certified elections administrator's annual pay increase: 5% (the cap on county-officer raises) or 10% (the cap in the elections administrator statute)?

Subject

Compensation Increases for Certified Elections Administrators

Plain-English summary

Two Tennessee statutes set yearly raises for two different groups of officials. Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-24-102(d) sets a 5% cap on the annual increase for general county officers. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(f) sets a 10% cap on the annual increase for certified elections administrators. The County Technical Assistance Service had been publishing a salary schedule that applied the 5% cap to elections administrators, which would have produced a smaller raise in years when state employees received a larger one. The Comptroller asked which cap controls.

The AG concludes that the 10% cap in § 2-12-208(f) controls. Both statutes use a similar formula tying the raise to the prior-year state-employee increase, but § 2-12-208 is the specific statute for elections administrators while § 8-24-102 is the general county-officer statute. Under Lawson v. Hawkins County, the more specific statute prevails. The legislative history confirms the 10% and 5% caps were never collapsed into one rule. The opinion adds an important caveat: the 10% cap is a ceiling, not a floor. The actual raise is calculated using the formula (state-employee raise × the median-county compensation), and a county is not required to give 10% just because state employees got 10%.

What this means for you

For elections administrators

In years when the state-employee raise is 10% or above, your annual increase is capped at 10%, not 5%. But the 10% is a ceiling. The actual dollar amount of your raise is the prior-year state-employee raise multiplied by the compensation set for the median-population county. Bring this opinion to your county's HR or finance office if your raise was calculated under the 5% cap. There may be a back-pay issue, depending on your county's past practice.

For county finance officers and HR directors

Update your salary schedules. Elections administrators are governed by § 2-12-208(f), not § 8-24-102(d). The 5% cap in § 8-24-102(d) does not apply to them. Run the formula calculation; do not assume the cap is the answer.

For the County Technical Assistance Service

The schedule that imposed a 5% cap on elections administrators was inconsistent with the controlling statute. Updating the published schedule to reflect the 10% cap will save counties confusion and possible back-pay disputes.

For county election commissions

If your administrator was underpaid in any prior year because the schedule used the wrong cap, document it. Whether back pay is owed is a separate question that turns on contract, statute of limitations, and equitable considerations. Consult your county attorney.

For the General Assembly if it wants uniformity

The 10%/5% gap goes back to 1996 and has survived multiple amendment cycles. The AG's opinion stops short of calling that gap a drafting glitch; it treats the divergence as a deliberate legislative choice. If the legislature wants a single cap, it must amend one statute or the other.

Common questions

What is the formula for an elections administrator's annual raise?

Under § 2-12-208(f): the raise is "a dollar amount equal to the average annualized general increase in state employee's compensation during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the compensation established for the county officials of the county with the median population of all counties." The 10% cap caps that calculated dollar amount.

What about the formula for general county officers?

Under § 8-24-102(d): the same multiplication formula, but with the 5% cap (replacing an earlier 7% cap from 1996, dropped to 5% in 2001).

Why are the two formulas different?

The General Assembly enacted them in two different chapters of the 1996 acts (chapter 856 for elections administrators, chapter 936 for county officers) with different caps. Subsequent amendments have not reconciled them. The AG reads that as an intentional decision because repeals by implication are disfavored under Tennessee law.

Are elections administrators state officials or county officials?

Unsettled. Some federal cases (Ellis v. Bradley County) treat them as state officials for employment-law purposes. The AG opinion notes the question but says it does not have to answer it: even if elections administrators were considered county officials, the more specific statute (§ 2-12-208) would still control.

What is "implied repeal" and why does it matter here?

Implied repeal is when a court treats a later statute as having repealed an earlier one because the two are irreconcilable. Tennessee courts disfavor it (Falls v. Goins, Knox County Education Ass'n). The AG concludes that the 5% cap and the 10% cap can be read together (different officials, different statutes), so neither has impliedly repealed the other.

Does this mean every administrator gets a 10% raise in big-raise years?

No. The 10% is a cap. The actual raise is determined by the multiplication formula. A 2007 amendment to § 8-24-102 added a "shall not be less than" floor for general county officers (the percentage tied to the median-county increase), but § 2-12-208 has no parallel floor language. So an administrator could receive less than 10% even in a big-raise year.

Background and statutory framework

The certified elections administrator position originated in 1996 (1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 1081) replacing the earlier "registrar-at-large" terminology, which the General Assembly formally changed in 1997 (1997 Pub. Acts, ch. 558).

§ 2-12-208(a) sets the base minimum yearly salary for elections administrators as a percentage of the assessor of property's salary, varying by county classification. § 2-12-208(f) provides annual increases tied to the prior-year average state-employee raise, capped at 10%. The only post-1996 amendment to § 2-12-208 was a 2005 change (2005 Pub. Acts, ch. 470) updating the base-formula in subsection (a). Subsection (f), the increase provision, has not been amended since enactment.

§ 8-24-102 is the general county-officer compensation statute. The increase provision in § 8-24-102(d) was amended in 1998 (clarifying definitions; 1998 Pub. Acts, ch. 1129), 2001 (substituting a new schedule and dropping the cap from 7% to 5%; 2001 Pub. Acts, ch. 405), 2005 (clerks of court issues; 2005 Pub. Acts, ch. 195), 2006 (clerks of court who serve more than one court; 2006 Pub. Acts, ch. 601), and 2007 (adding a percentage floor; 2007 Pub. Acts, ch. 470). None of these amendments expressly extended the 5% cap to elections administrators.

The AG's reasoning relies on three doctrines:

1. The specific governs the general (Lawson v. Hawkins County). Even if administrators could be considered county officials, § 2-12-208 is the specific statute and controls.

2. Repeals by implication are disfavored (Falls v. Goins; Knox County Education Ass'n). Where two statutes can be read harmoniously, both stand.

3. Statutory text and legislative history (Cronin v. Howe). The General Assembly is presumed to know its prior enactments. The 1996 legislature enacted the 10% cap for administrators in chapter 1081 and the 7% cap for county officers in chapter 936 on the same day, signaling intentional differentiation.

Citations

• Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208 (elections administrator compensation)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a) (base salary formula)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(f) (10% cap on annual increase)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-24-102(d) (5% cap on county-officer annual increase)
• 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 1081 (creating the elections administrator position and the 10% cap)
• 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 936 (general county officer compensation)
• 2001 Pub. Acts, ch. 405 (lowering the cap in § 8-24-102 from 7% to 5%)
• 2007 Pub. Acts, ch. 470 (adding percentage floor to § 8-24-102)
• Lawson v. Hawkins County, 661 S.W.3d 54 (Tenn. 2023)
• Falls v. Goins, 673 S.W.3d 173 (Tenn. 2023)
• Knox Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 60 S.W.3d 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)
• Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910 (Tenn. 1995)
• Reams v. Trostel Mech. Indus., 522 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1975)
• Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Hillsboro Land Co., 436 S.W.2d 850 (Tenn. 1968)
• Ellis v. Bradley Cnty., 2007 WL 1830756 (E.D. Tenn. June 22, 2007)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2025/op25-011.pdf

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 25-011
Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-24-102(d) requires that each year the compensation for
certain county officials "be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized general
increase in state employees' compensation during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the
compensation established herein for the county officials of the county with the median population
of all counties; provided, however, that the annualized general increase tied to the increase in state
employees' compensation shall not exceed five percent (5%) in any given year[.]' For the past
several years, the County Technical Assistance Service has published a schedule indicating the
minimum salary based on the foregoing statutory provision for various county officials, including
allowing for a yearly increase of up to 5% for elections administrators.
However, Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(f) requires that "each July 1 the compensation
for certified administrators shall be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average
annualized general increase in state employee's compensation during the prior fiscal year
population of all counties; provided, in no year shall such compensation increase by more than ten
percent (10%)."
In years in which the average annualized general increase in state employee compensation
is 10% or greater, is the minimum increase in compensation for certified elections administrators
The formula and 10% cap in Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(f) govern compensation
increases for certified elections administrators.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-12-208 and § 8-24-102 govern compensation for various
officials. Both provide for minimum yearly compensation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a); Tenn.
Code Ann. § 8-24-102(b). And both involve consideration of the compensation provided to a
county's assessor of property. Indeed, the assessor of property is among the county officers for
whom § 8-24-102 provides "minimum compensation." See Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-24-102(a)-(b).
And under § 2-12-208, the minimum salary of a certified elections administrator is directly tied to
the base salary of the county's assessor of property. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a).
STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
June 3, 2025
Opinion No. 25-011
Compensation Increases for Certified Elections Administrators
Question
Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-24-102(d) requires that each year the compensation for
certain county officials “be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized general
increase in state employees’ compensation . . . during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the
compensation established herein for the county officials of the county with the median population
of all counties; provided, however, that the annualized general increase tied to the increase in state
employees’ compensation shall not exceed five percent (5%) in any given year[.]” For the past
several years, the County Technical Assistance Service has published a schedule indicating the
minimum salary based on the foregoing statutory provision for various county officials, including
allowing for a yearly increase of up to 5% for elections administrators.
However, Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(f) requires that “each July 1 . . . the compensation
for certified administrators . . . shall be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average
annualized general increase in state employee’s compensation during the prior fiscal year
multiplied by the compensation established for the county officials of the county with the median
population of all counties; provided, in no year shall such compensation increase by more than ten
percent (10%).”
In years in which the average annualized general increase in state employee compensation
is 10% or greater, is the minimum increase in compensation for certified elections administrators
5% or 10%?
Opinion
The formula and 10% cap in Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(f) govern compensation
increases for certified elections administrators.
ANALYSIS
Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-12-208 and § 8-24-102 govern compensation for various
officials. Both provide for minimum yearly compensation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a); Tenn.
Code Ann. § 8-24-102(b). And both involve consideration of the compensation provided to a
county’s assessor of property. Indeed, the assessor of property is among the county officers for
whom § 8-24-102 provides “minimum compensation.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-24-102(a)-(b).
And under § 2-12-208, the minimum salary of a certified elections administrator is directly tied to
the base salary of the county’s assessor of property. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a).
But by their terms, § 2-12-208 and § 8-24-102 regulate distinct subjects-one regulates
elections administrators and the other county officers. And because § 2-12-208 specifically
regulates the compensation of elections administrators, its provisions-not those within § 8-24-
The difference in treatment between the compensation available to elections administrators
of Tennessee's 99th General Assembly. That legislative session saw the General Assembly pass
1 At least one court has concluded that, in the employment law context, elections administrators are State officials, not
county ones. See, e.g., Ellis v. Bradley Cnty., No. 1:06-CV-260, 2007 WL 1830756, at 5 (E.D. Tenn. June 22, 2007)
(concluding that "an Administrator of Elections under Tennessee law is a State official"), aff' 387 F. App'x 516 (6th
Cir. 2008). But even if elections administrators could be considered county officials, it is well established that "a
more specific statutory provision" generally "takes precedence over a more general provision." See Lawson v.
Hawkins Cnty., 661 S.W.3d 54, 66 (Tenn. 2023) (quotations omitted). Moreover, whereas § 8-24-102 lists several
officers that are to be considered "general officers" "[f]or the purposes of determining the compensation to be received
by the various county officers," we observe that elections administrators are not among the officers listed. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 8-24-102(a).
2 As a technical matter, we observe that the terminology utilized within the 1996 legislation referred to "registrars,"
not elections administrators. See 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 1081. But that terminology is simply a relic of that time and is
without any substantive significance to the discussion herein. As was reflected in additional legislation from the
following year, the General Assembly noted that the "Administrator of Elections" is the immediate successor to the
"Registrar-at-Large" for each county. 1997 Pub. Acts, ch. 558. And it provided that, "[w]herever in the Tennessee
Code the registrar-at-large is referred to, the term 'Administrator of Elections' shall be substituted." Id.; see also Ellis,
2007 WL 1830756, at 4 (noting that administrators were "amended in 1997 from the term 'registrars''). A 1997
supplement to the Tennessee Code did, in fact, employ updated terminology when incorporating the 1996 amendment
to § 2-12-208, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208 (Supp. 1997), and consistent with this background, we generally
reference the 1996 amendment to § 2-12-208 as pertaining to the compensation of elections administrators despite the
terminology that prevailed at the time of its passage.
3 For a certified administrator of elections, the General Assembly set the base minimum yearly salary according to a
percentage of the salary of the county's assessor of property. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a) (Supp. 1997); 1996 Pub.
Acts, ch. 1081. It also provided that the specific percentage to be used varied depending on the classification of the
individual county involved. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a) (Supp. 1997); 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 1081. Although the
compensation made available to general county officers under § 8-24-102 also varied depending on the county
involved, the variation was not attributable to a menu of differing formulas tied to the salaries of counties' assessors
of property. Rather, the General Assembly mandated that the general officers identified therein, which included
assessors of property, receive compensation according to a schedule then being promulgated in § 8-24-102(b). Tenn.
Code Ann. § 8-24-102(b) (Supp. 1997); 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 936.
4 For certified elections administrators, the 1996 legislation provided that, "[o]n July 1, 1997, and each July 1
thereafter," the compensation provided for "shall be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized
general increase in state employee's compensation during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the compensation
established for the county officials of the county with the median population of all counties." 1996 Pub. Acts, ch.
2
But by their terms, § 2-12-208 and § 8-24-102 regulate distinct subjects—one regulates
elections administrators and the other county officers. And because § 2-12-208 specifically
regulates the compensation of elections administrators, its provisions—not those within § 8-24-
102—are ultimately dispositive of your question.1
The difference in treatment between the compensation available to elections administrators
and county officers is nothing new. For example, consider the action taken during the 1996 Session
of Tennessee’s 99th General Assembly. That legislative session saw the General Assembly pass
acts pertaining to the compensation of both sets of officials. See 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 936 (county
officers); 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 1081 (elections administrators).2
And notably, the resulting
standards governing each diverged.
Although the differences started at a foundational level,3
the General Assembly also
enacted different standards pertaining to compensation increases. To be sure, the initial language
governing the increases was, at root, essentially the same under both 1996 public acts.4
But the
1
At least one court has concluded that, in the employment law context, elections administrators are State officials, not
county ones. See, e.g., Ellis v. Bradley Cnty., No. 1:06-CV-260, 2007 WL 1830756, at 5 (E.D. Tenn. June 22, 2007)
(concluding that “an Administrator of Elections under Tennessee law is a State official”), aff’d, 387 F. App’x 516 (6th
Cir. 2008). But even if elections administrators could be considered county officials, it is well established that “a
more specific statutory provision” generally “takes precedence over a more general provision.” See Lawson v.
Hawkins Cnty., 661 S.W.3d 54, 66 (Tenn. 2023) (quotations omitted). Moreover, whereas § 8-24-102 lists several
officers that are to be considered “general officers” “[f]or the purposes of determining the compensation to be received
by the various county officers,” we observe that elections administrators are not among the officers listed. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 8-24-102(a).
2
As a technical matter, we observe that the terminology utilized within the 1996 legislation referred to “registrars,”
not elections administrators. See 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 1081. But that terminology is simply a relic of that time and is
without any substantive significance to the discussion herein. As was reflected in additional legislation from the
following year, the General Assembly noted that the “Administrator of Elections” is the immediate successor to the
“Registrar-at-Large” for each county. 1997 Pub. Acts, ch. 558. And it provided that, “[w]herever in the Tennessee
Code the registrar-at-large is referred to, the term ‘Administrator of Elections’ shall be substituted.” Id.; see also Ellis,
2007 WL 1830756, at 4 (noting that administrators were “amended in 1997 from the term ‘registrars’”). A 1997
supplement to the Tennessee Code did, in fact, employ updated terminology when incorporating the 1996 amendment
to § 2-12-208, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208 (Supp. 1997), and consistent with this background, we generally
reference the 1996 amendment to § 2-12-208 as pertaining to the compensation of elections administrators despite the
terminology that prevailed at the time of its passage.
3
For a certified administrator of elections, the General Assembly set the base minimum yearly salary according to a
percentage of the salary of the county’s assessor of property. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a) (Supp. 1997); 1996 Pub.
Acts, ch. 1081. It also provided that the specific percentage to be used varied depending on the classification of the
individual county involved. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208(a) (Supp. 1997); 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 1081. Although the
compensation made available to general county officers under § 8-24-102 also varied depending on the county
involved, the variation was not attributable to a menu of differing formulas tied to the salaries of counties’ assessors
of property. Rather, the General Assembly mandated that the general officers identified therein, which included
assessors of property, receive compensation according to a schedule then being promulgated in § 8-24-102(b). Tenn.
Code Ann. § 8-24-102(b) (Supp. 1997); 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 936.
4
For certified elections administrators, the 1996 legislation provided that, “[o]n July 1, 1997, and each July 1
thereafter,” the compensation provided for “shall be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized
general increase in state employee’s compensation during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the compensation
established for the county officials of the county with the median population of all counties.” 1996 Pub. Acts, ch.
acts failed to align on the upper limit of the available increases. The General Assembly capped
the increases for certified elections administrators under § 2-12-208 at 10%; by contrast, it placed
a 7% cap on the increases for county officials under § 8-24-102. Compare 1996 Pub. Acts, ch.
1081 ("[I]n no year shall such compensation increase by more than ten percent (10%)."), with 1996
Pub. Acts, ch. 936 ("[I]n no year shall such compensation increase by more than seven percent
(7%)."). The 7% cap of course has since been replaced with the 5% cap referenced in your request,
see Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-24-102(d), but the same basic dichotomy persists to this day.
The provision in § 8-24-102(d)-more accurately, the amendments thereto-did not
somehow repeal the 10% cap in § 2-12-208(f). Repeals by implication are not favored under the
law, Falls v. Goins, 673 S.W.3d 173, 180 (Tenn. 2023), and a "construction that places one act in
conflict with another must be avoided." Knox Cnty. Educ. Ass' v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 60
S.W.3d 65, 74 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). In fact, to "provide a harmonious operation of the laws,"
courts strive to "resolve any possible conflict between statutes in favor of each other." Cronin v.
Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tenn. 1995). Courts further presume that the General Assembly has
knowledge of its prior enactments at the time it passes legislation, id., and an implied repeal will
only be found when conflict between acts is "inescapable." Knox Cnty. Educ. Ass'n, 60 S.W.3d
at 74. Even then, however, an act which is "repugnant and irreconcilable on a particular point with
a prior act" will operate as an implied repeal "only to the extent of such repugnancy and conflict."
Reams v. Trostel Mech. Indus., Inc., 522 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tenn. 1975). And "repugnance or
conflict will not be found where any fair and reasonable construction will permit the statutes to
stand together." Metro. Gov't of Nashville v. Hillsboro Land Co., 436 S.W.2d 850, 854 (Tenn.
In our opinion, the application of these principles does not upend the notion that the 10%
cap in § 2-12-208(f) still applies to elections administrators. Although there have been some
changes to § 2-12-208 and § 8-24-102 since the 1996 legislation highlighted above, we cannot
conclude that these changes have prompted irreconcilable tension with § 2-12-208(f).
Start with the post-1996 amendments to § 8-24-102. A 1998 public act simply purported
to clarify the then existing law relative to § 8-24-102's compensation increase provision, offering
a precise definition for the term "average annualized general increase in state employee's
compensation." See 1998 Pub. Acts, ch. 1129. Although more substantial amendments to § 8-24-
102 followed in 2001, none of the changes signaled an intent to displace § 2-12-208 with § 8-24-
administrators. It reflected a legislative intent to lower the cap within § 8-24-102 to the 5% figure
1081. Near-identical language was passed by the General Assembly relative to the compensation of county officials
under § 8-24-102. See 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 936.
5 Among other things, the 2001 legislation substituted a new compensation schedule in § 8-24-102(b) for county
general officers, labeled that compensation as the "minimum compensation per year," and stated that county legislative
bodies were permitted to increase or decrease compensation of county officials "so long as the compensation is
maintained at, or above, the minimum levels established herein." 2001 Pub. Acts, ch. 405.
6 As written, the amendment substituted the following language into § 8-24-102's compensation increase provision:
3
acts failed to align on the upper limit of the available increases. The General Assembly capped
the increases for certified elections administrators under § 2-12-208 at 10%; by contrast, it placed
a 7% cap on the increases for county officials under § 8-24-102. Compare 1996 Pub. Acts, ch.
1081 (“[I]n no year shall such compensation increase by more than ten percent (10%).”), with 1996
Pub. Acts, ch. 936 (“[I]n no year shall such compensation increase by more than seven percent
(7%).”). The 7% cap of course has since been replaced with the 5% cap referenced in your request,
see Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-24-102(d), but the same basic dichotomy persists to this day.
The provision in § 8-24-102(d)—more accurately, the amendments thereto—did not
somehow repeal the 10% cap in § 2-12-208(f). Repeals by implication are not favored under the
law, Falls v. Goins, 673 S.W.3d 173, 180 (Tenn. 2023), and a “construction that places one act in
conflict with another must be avoided.” Knox Cnty. Educ. Ass’n v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 60
S.W.3d 65, 74 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). In fact, to “provide a harmonious operation of the laws,”
courts strive to “resolve any possible conflict between statutes in favor of each other.” Cronin v.
Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tenn. 1995). Courts further presume that the General Assembly has
knowledge of its prior enactments at the time it passes legislation, id., and an implied repeal will
only be found when conflict between acts is “inescapable.” Knox Cnty. Educ. Ass’n, 60 S.W.3d
at 74. Even then, however, an act which is “repugnant and irreconcilable on a particular point with
a prior act” will operate as an implied repeal “only to the extent of such repugnancy and conflict.”
Reams v. Trostel Mech. Indus., Inc., 522 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tenn. 1975). And “repugnance or
conflict will not be found where any fair and reasonable construction will permit the statutes to
stand together.” Metro. Gov’t of Nashville v. Hillsboro Land Co., 436 S.W.2d 850, 854 (Tenn.
1968) (emphasis added).
In our opinion, the application of these principles does not upend the notion that the 10%
cap in § 2-12-208(f) still applies to elections administrators. Although there have been some
changes to § 2-12-208 and § 8-24-102 since the 1996 legislation highlighted above, we cannot
conclude that these changes have prompted irreconcilable tension with § 2-12-208(f).
Start with the post-1996 amendments to § 8-24-102. A 1998 public act simply purported
to clarify the then existing law relative to § 8-24-102’s compensation increase provision, offering
a precise definition for the term “average annualized general increase in state employee’s
compensation.” See 1998 Pub. Acts, ch. 1129. Although more substantial amendments to § 8-24-
102 followed in 2001, none of the changes signaled an intent to displace § 2-12-208 with § 8-24-
102. See 2001 Pub. Acts, ch. 405.5
In fact, the 2001 amendment had no nexus to elections
administrators. It reflected a legislative intent to lower the cap within § 8-24-102 to the 5% figure
that exists under current law, not to expand § 8-24-102’s coverage. Id.6
1081. Near-identical language was passed by the General Assembly relative to the compensation of county officials
under § 8-24-102. See 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 936.
5
Among other things, the 2001 legislation substituted a new compensation schedule in § 8-24-102(b) for county
general officers, labeled that compensation as the “minimum compensation per year,” and stated that county legislative
bodies were permitted to increase or decrease compensation of county officials “so long as the compensation is
maintained at, or above, the minimum levels established herein.” 2001 Pub. Acts, ch. 405.
6
As written, the amendment substituted the following language into § 8-24-102’s compensation increase provision:
Nor did subsequent amendments evidence legislative action to extend § 8-24-102's cap to
elections administrators. The 2005 and 2006 amendments to § 8-24-102 concerned compensation
issues relative to clerks of court who serve more than one court. See 2005 Pub. Acts, ch. 195;
increase provision, it simply added a proviso affecting the terms of available increases. See 2007
Pub. Acts, ch. 470. The substantive scope of coverage of § 8-24-102's cap was undisturbed.
Turning to § 2-12-208, we note that there has only been one statutory amendment since
1996, one from 2005. See 2005 Pub. Acts, ch. 470. The 2005 amendment related solely to § 2-
12-208(a) and involved a change to the formula that determined the "base minimum yearly salary"
of certified elections administrators. See id. Because the General Assembly did not alter any other
subsections of § 2-12-208, including the compensation increase provision in § 2-12-208(f), the
general features of the statute remained the same. Section 2-12-208(a) still sets a base minimum
yearly salary for an elections administrator-albeit under an updated formula-and § 2-12-208(f)
retains a mechanism by which compensation provided for is to be increased yearly up to 10%. See
Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208.
In short, the statutes cited in your request can be read harmoniously: § 2-12-208 governs
elections administrators and § 8-24-102 governs various county officials. The statutory text and
legislative amendments make clear that the General Assembly intended to set different caps for
these officials. And the 10% cap in § 2-12-208(f) governs compensation increases for certified
It does not necessarily follow, however, that the minimum increase in compensation for
every certified elections administrator is 10% just because the average annualized general increase
in state employee compensation was 10% or greater during the prior fiscal year. Indeed, the statute
does not mandate that every increase mechanically equate to the percentage increase tied to state
employees. Instead, the statute provides that the compensation for certified elections
administrators shall be increased "by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized general
increase in state employee's compensation during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the
compensation established for the county officials of the county with the median population of all
On July 1, 2002, and each July thereafter, the minimum compensation for county officials, as
provided by this section, shall be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized
general increase in state employees' compensation, including the equivalent percentage increase in
average state employees' salaries represented by appropriated funds made available to address
classification compensation issues, during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the compensation
established herein for the county officials of the county with the median population of all counties.
Provided however that the annualized general increase tied to the increase in state employees'
compensation shall not exceed five percent (5%) in any given year.
2001 Pub. Acts, ch. 405.
7 The 2006 legislation also concluded by providing that, for purposes of another statutory subsection concerning
compensation of the sheriff and chief administrative officer of the county highway department, "any additional
compensation provided to a general officer under any provision of this statute shall be included when determining the
salary paid to the general officers of the county." 2006 Pub. Acts, ch. 601.
4
Nor did subsequent amendments evidence legislative action to extend § 8-24-102’s cap to
elections administrators. The 2005 and 2006 amendments to § 8-24-102 concerned compensation
issues relative to clerks of court who serve more than one court. See 2005 Pub. Acts, ch. 195;
2006 Pub. Acts, ch. 601.7
And although a 2007 amendment dealt with § 8-24-102’s compensation
increase provision, it simply added a proviso affecting the terms of available increases. See 2007
Pub. Acts, ch. 470. The substantive scope of coverage of § 8-24-102’s cap was undisturbed.
Turning to § 2-12-208, we note that there has only been one statutory amendment since
1996, one from 2005. See 2005 Pub. Acts, ch. 470. The 2005 amendment related solely to § 2-
12-208(a) and involved a change to the formula that determined the “base minimum yearly salary”
of certified elections administrators. See id. Because the General Assembly did not alter any other
subsections of § 2-12-208, including the compensation increase provision in § 2-12-208(f), the
general features of the statute remained the same. Section 2-12-208(a) still sets a base minimum
yearly salary for an elections administrator—albeit under an updated formula—and § 2-12-208(f)
retains a mechanism by which compensation provided for is to be increased yearly up to 10%. See
Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-12-208.
In short, the statutes cited in your request can be read harmoniously: § 2-12-208 governs
elections administrators and § 8-24-102 governs various county officials. The statutory text and
legislative amendments make clear that the General Assembly intended to set different caps for
these officials. And the 10% cap in § 2-12-208(f) governs compensation increases for certified
elections administrators.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that the minimum increase in compensation for
every certified elections administrator is 10% just because the average annualized general increase
in state employee compensation was 10% or greater during the prior fiscal year. Indeed, the statute
does not mandate that every increase mechanically equate to the percentage increase tied to state
employees. Instead, the statute provides that the compensation for certified elections
administrators shall be increased “by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized general
increase in state employee’s compensation during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the
compensation established for the county officials of the county with the median population of all
On July 1, 2002, and each July thereafter, the minimum compensation for county officials, as
provided by this section, shall be increased by a dollar amount equal to the average annualized
general increase in state employees’ compensation, including the equivalent percentage increase in
average state employees’ salaries represented by appropriated funds made available to address
classification compensation issues, during the prior fiscal year multiplied by the compensation
established herein for the county officials of the county with the median population of all counties.
Provided however that the annualized general increase tied to the increase in state employees’
compensation shall not exceed five percent (5%) in any given year.
2001 Pub. Acts, ch. 405.
7
The 2006 legislation also concluded by providing that, for purposes of another statutory subsection concerning
compensation of the sheriff and chief administrative officer of the county highway department, “any additional
compensation provided to a general officer under any provision of this statute shall be included when determining the
salary paid to the general officers of the county.” 2006 Pub. Acts, ch. 601.
8 By way of contrast, § 8-24-102's compensation increase provision operates somewhat differently in its current form.
Although it has similar general language in its opening, a 2007 amendment-as noted earlier herein-added a proviso
affecting the terms of available increases. See 2007 Pub. Acts, ch. 470. Specifically, the 2007 amendment to § 8-24-
102 stated as follows: "Provided further, notwithstanding the dollar amount provided herein, the percentage increase
provided for county officials by this subsection shall not be less than the percentage increase established for county
officials of the county with the median population of all counties." Id.
5
counties.” Id. § 2-12-208(f).8
That formula, subject to the 10% cap, sets the limit of any available
increase in compensation.
JONATHAN SKRMETTI
Attorney General and Reporter
J. MATTHEW RICE
Solicitor General
MATTHEW KERNODLE
Assistant Attorney General
Requested by:
The Honorable Jason E. Mumpower
Comptroller of the Treasury
State Capitol
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
8
By way of contrast, § 8-24-102’s compensation increase provision operates somewhat differently in its current form.
Although it has similar general language in its opening, a 2007 amendment—as noted earlier herein—added a proviso
affecting the terms of available increases. See 2007 Pub. Acts, ch. 470. Specifically, the 2007 amendment to § 8-24-
102 stated as follows: “Provided further, notwithstanding the dollar amount provided herein, the percentage increase
provided for county officials by this subsection shall not be less than the percentage increase established for county
officials of the county with the median population of all counties.” Id.