When can a Texas county salary grievance committee meet to raise elected officials' pay?

Plain-English summary

Texas counties set the pay of their elected officials as part of the annual budget. If an official thinks the proposed salary is too low, the law gives a short appeal: a "salary grievance committee" can hear the complaint and, if enough members agree, recommend an increase. This opinion is about the timing of that appeal.

In San Jacinto County, the commissioners court approved a $1,000 raise for elected officials for the 1995 fiscal year (which began January 1, 1995) and adopted the budget on January 9, 1995. But the district attorney's office determined the court had never given the public the notice required by Local Government Code section 152.013(b), so it advised the county judge that the raise was invalid and the officials could be paid only at the prior year's figure. The office also told the judge the affected officials could appeal to the salary grievance committee. Thirteen of the eighteen elected officers did, and on March 20, 1995, the nine-member committee voted unanimously to grant the $1,000 raise, effective at the earliest date allowed by law. The district attorney asked whether that recommended increase could take effect before the next fiscal year began on January 1, 1996.

The Attorney General did not reach that question, because the premise failed: the committee had no authority to meet when it did. Reading the county budget statutes (Local Government Code chapter 111, subchapter A) together with the salary and grievance provisions (sections 152.013 and 152.016), the office laid out the sequence. The commissioners court sets salaries during the regular budget hearing; after adopting the budget but before filing it with the county clerk, it gives each elected officer written notice of the budgeted salary; an aggrieved officer then has five days to request a grievance hearing; and the committee must hold the hearing within ten days. If nine members sign a recommendation, the court must include the increase in the budget "before the budget is filed," and the increase takes effect in the next budget year.

That chronology means the committee can act only in a brief window, after the commissioners court adopts the budget and before it files the final budget with the county clerk. The statutes do not contemplate the committee meeting at any other time, and certainly not after the fiscal year has already started. Because the San Jacinto committee heard the grievance after the fiscal year began, it was unauthorized to act, and its unanimous vote to raise salaries by $1,000 was void. The office also overruled its earlier Opinion MW-516 (1982), to the extent it was inconsistent: the Legislature amended the statute in 1983 specifically to stop mid-year salary increases that throw a county's budget out of balance.

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.

This opinion construed the county budgeting provisions in Local Government Code chapter 111 and the elected-officer salary and grievance provisions in sections 152.013 and 152.016 (recodified from V.T.C.S. article 3912k). Those statutes have been amended since 1996, and the specific section numbers, population thresholds, and deadlines may differ today. Read this page for the office's 1996 reading of how the grievance timing worked, and verify the current Local Government Code before relying on any specific deadline.

What the opinion meant at the time

For elected county and precinct officers: The opinion meant a salary grievance had to be raised and heard during the regular budget process, before the county filed its final budget. An officer who waited until after the fiscal year began had no valid path to a committee-ordered raise for that year.

For salary grievance committees: The opinion meant the committee's authority was confined to the budget-process window. A committee that met after the budget was filed, and especially after the fiscal year started, acted without authority, and its decisions were void.

For commissioners courts and county budgets: The opinion meant a county would not be forced to absorb a mid-year salary increase from a late grievance vote. The 1983 amendments were designed to keep grievance recommendations aligned with the budget calendar so the budget could stay balanced.

For lawyers: The office read chapters 111 and 152 together to fix the committee's operating window, held the San Jacinto committee's post-fiscal-year vote void (citing Opinions JM-27 and Letter Opinion 95-18), and overruled MW-516 to the extent inconsistent, relying on the 1983 amendment's text and legislative history.

Common questions

Can a county salary grievance committee meet any time during the year?
No. The office concluded the committee may operate only in a narrow window during the regular budget process, after the commissioners court adopts the budget and before it files the final budget with the county clerk. It may not meet after the fiscal year has begun.

What happens if the committee meets too late?
Its actions are void. The office held that the San Jacinto committee's unanimous vote to grant a $1,000 raise, taken after the fiscal year started, had no effect.

How fast does an aggrieved officer have to act?
Quickly. The officer must deliver a written hearing request to the committee chair within five days of receiving notice of the budgeted salary, and the committee must hold the hearing within ten days of receiving the request.

When does a committee-approved raise take effect?
When nine members sign the recommendation, the commissioners court must include the increase in the budget before filing it, and the increase takes effect in the next budget year, not mid-year.

Did this opinion change earlier guidance?
Yes. The office overruled its 1982 Opinion MW-516 to the extent it was inconsistent, explaining that the Legislature amended the statute in 1983 to prevent mid-year increases that unbalance a county budget.

Background and statutory framework

Two parts of the Local Government Code fit together here. Chapter 111, subchapter A sets the budget process for a county with a population of 225,000 or less (San Jacinto County had about 16,372 people). During the seventh month of the fiscal year, the county judge, helped by the auditor or clerk, prepares a budget of all proposed expenditures and estimated revenues for the succeeding year (section 111.003, section 111.004), files it with the county clerk for public inspection (section 111.006), and the commissioners court holds a public hearing and then takes action on the budget (sections 111.007, 111.008). Once the court approves the budget, it files the approved budget with the clerk (section 111.009) and may thereafter spend only in accordance with it, save for a grave public necessity (section 111.010), though it may amend the budget for county purposes (section 111.011).

Within that framework, sections 152.013 through 152.016 govern elected-officer salaries. Section 152.013 requires the commissioners court to set each elected county or precinct officer's salary, expenses, and allowances at a regular meeting during the budget hearing, and, before filing the annual budget with the clerk, to give each officer written notice of the salary and personal expenses to be budgeted. Section 152.016 then gives a dissatisfied officer a fast appeal: a written hearing request to the committee chair within five days of notice; a public hearing within ten days of the request; and, if six or more members vote for an increase, a written recommendation to the commissioners court. A six-to-eight-member recommendation goes to the court for consideration at its next meeting; a unanimous nine-member recommendation must be included in the budget before it is filed and takes effect in the next budget year. The committee may not set county policy or add new budget items (section 152.016(d)).

Putting the chronology together, the office concluded the committee can act only after the court adopts the budget and before it files the final budget with the clerk. The statutes do not contemplate the committee meeting outside the regular budget process, so the San Jacinto committee's hearing after the fiscal year began was unauthorized and its vote void (citing Opinion JM-27 and Letter Opinion 95-18; and noting Opinions JM-839, H-643, and H-11 that a court may modify an elected officer's salary only during the regular budget hearing). The office then addressed its 1982 Opinion MW-516, which had allowed mid-year increases under the predecessor statute (V.T.C.S. article 3912k, section 2(d)) when no statute confined the committee to a set period. The 1983 Legislature amended that statute to require pre-filing notice, to impose the five-day and ten-day deadlines, and to provide that a nine-member recommendation takes effect "in the next budget year." Legislative testimony showed the change was meant to align grievance timing with the budget calendar and keep the budget balanced. The office therefore held MW-516 overruled to the extent inconsistent with this opinion.

Citations

Statutory provisions discussed:

• Local Government Code ch. 111, subch. A (county budget process), including § 111.001, § 111.003 (preparation), § 111.004 (revenue estimate), § 111.006 (filing for inspection), § 111.007 (public hearing), § 111.008 (action on budget), § 111.009 (filing approved budget), § 111.010 (spending limited to budget), § 111.011 (amendment), and § 111.061 (alternative method for larger counties)
• Local Government Code ch. 152, subch. B, § 152.013 (setting salaries and required notice), § 152.014(a) (composition of the grievance committee), and § 152.016 (grievance procedure, deadlines, and effective date)
• V.T.C.S. art. 3912k, § 2(d) (predecessor statute, amended in 1983)

Attorney General opinions cited:

• JM-27 (1983) and Letter Opinion No. 95-18 (1995) (unauthorized actions are void); JM-839 (1988), H-643 (1975), and H-11 (1973) (salary modified only during the regular budget hearing); MW-516 (1982) (overruled to the extent inconsistent)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0405
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1996/dm0405.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

DAN MORALES
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 29, 1996

Honorable Robert Hill Trapp
Criminal District Attorney
San Jacinto County
P.O. Box 430
Coldspring, Texas 77331

Opinion No. DM-405

Re: Whether a county salary grievance committee may consider an aggrieved elected county officer's complaint after the start of the county's fiscal year (RQ-826)

Dear Mr. Trapp:

You explain that the San Jacinto County Commissioners Court, on December 21, 1994, approved a salary increase of $1,000 for the 1995 fiscal year for elected county officials. The 1995 fiscal year began on January 1, 1995. The commissioners court unanimously approved the 1995 budget on January 9, 1995.

Your office determined that the commissioners court had not notified the public of the proposed increase in salaries of elected county officers in accordance with section 152.013(b) of the Local Government Code. You therefore advised the county judge that, as you state, "the $1,000 salary increase for elected officials was invalid and that the elected officials could only be paid at the salary figure set for the previous fiscal year."[1] Your office further advised the county judge that elected county officials, now denied the proposed salary increase, may, pursuant to section 152.016 of the Local Government Code, request a hearing before the salary grievance committee.

You indicate that thirteen of eighteen elected county officers in fact availed themselves of the grievance procedure provided in section 152.016 of the Local Government Code. On March 20, 1995, the full nine-member salary grievance committee unanimously voted to grant the $1,000 salary increase to the aggrieved elected officials, effective at the earliest date allowable by law. See Local Gov't Code § 152.016(c). You ask whether the recommended salary increase may take effect prior to the commencement of the 1996 fiscal year, on January 1, 1996.

Your question assumes the salary grievance committee properly met after the commencement of the new fiscal year. We do not believe, however, that the process outlined in the Local Government Code authorizes the salary grievance committee to meet after the commencement of the fiscal year. We conclude, therefore, that the salary grievance committee's actions are void. We will begin our analysis by briefly summarizing the county budget process.

Chapter 111, subchapter A of the Local Government Code provides the only method available for budget preparation in a county with a population less than 225,000 people.[2] Compare Local Gov't Code § 111.001 (providing budget preparation method for county with population of 225,000 or less) with id. § 111.061 (providing alternative budget preparation method for county with population higher than 225,000). During the seventh month of each fiscal year, section 111.003 requires the county judge, with the assistance of the county auditor or county clerk, to prepare a budget covering "all proposed expenditures of the county government for the succeeding fiscal year." The budget also must estimate revenues the county expects to receive in the succeeding year. Id. § 111.004(b), (c).

When the county judge has prepared the proposed budget, he or she must file a copy of it with the county clerk, who will make the copy available for inspection "by any taxpayer." Id. § 111.006. After the fifteenth day of the "month next following the month in which the budget was prepared," but before the county commissioners court levies taxes, the commissioners court must hold a public hearing on the proposed budget. Id. § 111.007(b). "At the conclusion of the public hearing, the commissioners court shall take action on the proposed budget." Id. § 111.008(a).

When the commissioners court has finally approved the budget, it must file the approved budget with the county clerk. Id. § 111.009. Once the budget is approved, the commissioners court may levy taxes and expend county funds only in accordance with the budget, except "in a case of grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that could not have been included in the original budget through the use of reasonably diligent thought and attention." Id. § 111.010. The county commissioners court may, however, amend the budget "for county purposes." Id. § 111.011.

Placed within this framework for the county's general budgeting process is a more specific procedure by which a county commissioners court sets the amount of compensation, expenses, and allowances each county officer and employee wholly paid from county funds will receive during the following fiscal year. Section 152.013 of the Local Government Code applies specifically to the salaries, expenses, and other allowances budgeted for elected county or precinct officers:

(a) Each year the commissioners court shall set the salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected county or precinct officers. The commissioners court shall set the items at a regular meeting of the court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings.

. . .

(c) Before filing the annual budget with the county clerk, the commissioners court shall give written notice to each elected county and precinct officer of the officer's salary and personal expenses to be included in the budget.

Any elected county or precinct officer who is dissatisfied with the amount of salary or personal expenses the county commissioners court proposes to pay the officer during the succeeding fiscal year may seek redress through the county's salary grievance committee, which is composed either of a mixture of public servants and private citizens or wholly of private citizens. See id. § 152.014(a). Section 152.016 provides as follows:

(a) An elected county or precinct officer who is aggrieved by the setting of the officer's salary or personal expenses may request a hearing before the salary grievance committee. The request must:

(1) be in writing;

(2) be delivered to the committee chairman within five days after the date the officer receives notice of the salary or personal expenses; and

(3) state the desired change in salary or personal expenses.

(b) The committee shall hold a public hearing within 10 days after the date the request is received.

(c) If, after the hearing, six or more of the members vote to recommend an increase in the officer's salary or personal expenses, the committee shall submit its recommendation to the commissioners court in writing. If six to eight members vote to recommend the increase, the commissioners court shall consider the recommendation at its next meeting. If nine members vote to recommend the increase and sign the recommendation, the commissioners court shall include the increase in the budget before the budget is filed and the increase takes effect in the next budget year.

(d) The committee's authority is limited to the consideration of increases in the salaries or personal expenses of county and precinct officers. The committee may not set policy of the county or add new items to a proposed county budget.

When pieced together, chapters 111, subchapter A and 152, subchapter B of the Local Government Code provide the chronology of a county's budgeting process. We will summarize the chronology of events pertinent to the issue you raise. First, once the commissioners court has received the proposed budget from the county judge, the commissioners court sets the salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected county officers "at a regular meeting of the court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings." Id. § 152.013(a).

Second, after the commissioners court has adopted the budget, but before filing it with the county clerk, the commissioners court notifies each elected county officer in writing of the salary and personal expenses the officer is budgeted to receive in the succeeding fiscal year. Id. § 152.013(c); see also id. § 111.009 (requiring county commissioners court to file approved budget with county clerk). Third, within five days of receiving notice, an aggrieved county officer must deliver to the salary committee chair a request for a hearing before the salary grievance committee. Id. § 152.016(a). Fourth, the salary grievance committee, within ten days of receiving the request for a hearing, must conduct a public hearing. Id. § 152.016(b).

If, as in the situation about which you inquire,[3] the vote to recommend an increase in the officer's salary is unanimous, the commissioners court must include the recommendation in the succeeding year's budget "before the budget is filed." Id.; see also id. § 111.009 (requiring county commissioners court to file approved budget with county clerk). If the grievance committee's vote is unanimous, the increase in salary or personal expenses "takes effect in the next budget year."[4] Id. § 152.016(c).

Thus, a county's salary grievance committee may operate only in a brief, specified window of time, after the county commissioners court adopts a budget for the succeeding fiscal year and prior to the time the county commissioners court files the final budget with the county clerk. The statutes do not contemplate that a grievance committee will operate at any time other than during the county's regular budget process. According to the information you provided, however, the salary grievance committee in San Jacinto County heard a grievance after the beginning of the county's fiscal year. The committee was unauthorized to consider a grievance at that time. Its unanimous vote to increase San Jacinto elected county officers' salaries by $1,000 is void. See Attorney General Opinion JM-27 (1983) at 2; Letter Opinion No. 95-18 (1995) at 2.

This result differs from our interpretation of the statutory predecessor to section 152.016 of the Local Government Code, V.T.C.S. article 3912k, section 2(d), in Attorney General Opinion MW-516 (1982). In 1982 V.T.C.S. article 3912k, section 2(d), provided that "[a] written recommendation signed by all nine committee members and delivered to the commissioners court becomes effective . . . on the first day of the month following its delivery to the commissioners court." See Act of May 29, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 336, § 1, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 1741, 1742 (proposing amendment to article 3912k, section 2(d)). Furthermore, no statute required the salary grievance committee to work in a specified period of time during the regular county budget process.

Attorney General Opinion MW-516 considered a situation in which the commissioners court failed to give proper notice of a budget that proposed to increase the salaries of elected county officers, effective at the start of the next fiscal year, January 1, 1982. See Attorney General Opinion MW-516 (1982) at 1-2. The district attorney advised the commissioners court that it had not complied with the law and that the salary increases were, therefore, invalid. Id. All elected county officials appealed to the salary grievance committee, which awarded increased salaries for the year, effective March 1, 1981. Id. Thus, the officers apparently began receiving the recommended increases in the middle of the county's fiscal year. See id.

In 1983 the legislature amended V.T.C.S. article 3912k, providing, among other things, a requirement that the commissioners court "prior to filing . . . the annual budget with the clerk of the county court" notify each elected county officer of his or her salary and personal expenses to be included in the succeeding year's budget. See Act of May 29, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 336, § 1, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 1741, 1742. Additionally, the legislature established the time line now found in section 152.016 of the Local Government Code: within five days of receiving notice of the budgeted salary and personal expenses, an aggrieved elected county officer must request a hearing before the salary grievance committee; within ten days after receiving the request for hearing, the salary grievance committee must conduct the hearing. See id. The legislature also added the language setting the effective date of a recommendation signed by nine members of the salary grievance committee and providing that such a recommendation becomes effective "in the next budget year." See id. § 1, at 1743.

Testimony before the House Committee on County Affairs indicated that, by changing the effective date of a recommendation of nine members of the salary grievance committee, the proposed amendment would improve the timing, relative to the county budgeting process, for implementing the recommendation. See Hearings on H.B. 804, 68th Leg. (Apr. 20, 1983) (testimony of Janet Coplin, representing Dallas County Commissioners Court) (tape available from House Video/Audio Services Office) (stating that amendment regarding time salary grievance committee could meet would coincide better with commissioners court's budget scheduling). Witnesses understood the proposed amendment to require an elected county officer who wished to file a grievance to do so before the county commissioners court finalizes its budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Id. (testimony of C.C. Smith, Van Zandt County Commissioner); see id. (testimony of Janet Coplin, representing Dallas County Commissioners Court).

In our opinion, the legislature amended the statutory predecessor to section 152.016(c) of the Local Government Code in 1983 to preclude a result such as that described in Attorney General Opinion MW-516, in which a county is faced with increased expenses in the middle of the budget year. See also Hearings on H.B. 804 Before the County Affairs Committee, 68th Leg. (Apr. 20, 1983) (testimony of Sam Hilliard, Van Zandt County Judge) (tape available from House Video/Audio Services Office) (stating that, under current system, it is "very difficult to operate and keep a balanced budget" because salary grievance commission may change budget at any point during year).

To the extent Attorney General Opinion MW-516 is inconsistent with this opinion, it has been overruled by the 1983 amendments to V.T.C.S. article 3912k, codified in part as Local Government Code sections 152.013 and 152.016.

SUMMARY

Under section 152.016 of the Local Government Code, an aggrieved elected county officer may request a hearing before the county's salary grievance committee within five days of receiving notice from the county commissioners court of the officer's salary and personal expenses for the upcoming budget year. The salary grievance committee must meet to consider the grievance within ten days after receiving the request for a hearing. A salary grievance committee may not meet after the county has filed with the county clerk the final budget for the succeeding fiscal year. The salary grievance committee certainly may not meet after the start of the fiscal year. Any actions taken by a salary grievance committee at an unauthorized meeting are void.

To the extent Attorney General Opinion MW-516 (1982) is inconsistent with this opinion, it has been overruled by the 1983 amendments to V.T.C.S. article 3912k, codified in part as Local Government Code sections 152.013 and 152.016.

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General

Footnotes:

[2] San Jacinto County, the county about which you ask, has a population of approximately 16,372 people. See Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population: General Characteristics: Texas 3 (1992).

[3] Because your situation did not involve a recommendation approved by six to eight salary grievance committee members, we need not consider whether such a recommendation, upon a favorable vote by the commissioners court, must be included in the budget when it is filed to take effect in the succeeding budget year.

[4] Indeed, previous opinions of this office have concluded that a commissioners court may modify an elected county official's salary only during the regular budget hearing. See, e.g., Attorney General Opinions JM-839 (1988) at 6, H-643 (1975) at 2 (construing statutory predecessor to Local Government Code section 152.013), H-11 (1973) at 3 (same).