Who sets a county court at law reporter's salary, the judge or the commissioners court?

Plain-English summary

Every county court at law that operates as a court of record needs an official court reporter, and that reporter draws a salary from the county. The Van Zandt County Criminal District Attorney asked the Attorney General two practical questions about who controls the reporter's job: who has the final say over the reporter's salary, and who decides whether the position is full-time or part-time.

The salary question turned on the wording of the court's enabling statute, which says the reporter "is entitled to receive a salary set by the judge of the county court at law with the approval of the commissioners court." The commissioners court read its power to "approve" as the same as its general fiscal power to set the pay of county employees. The opinion did not accept that. Reading chapter 25 of the Government Code as a whole, it pointed out that the Legislature wrote different salary rules for different statutory county courts: in some counties the commissioners court sets the reporter's salary outright, in others the judge sets it and the commissioners court only issues the payment order, and in still others (including Van Zandt) the judge sets it "with the approval" of the commissioners court. That deliberate variety told the opinion that the "with the approval" formula was meant to be collaborative. The commissioners court has some discretion to withhold approval, but the Legislature did not give it power to brush aside the judge's decision and set the salary on its own. So neither the judge nor the commissioners court has exclusive, independent authority over the number.

The opinion added a backstop. Because the statute entitles the reporter to "a salary" and a county court at law cannot function without a reporter, a reviewing court would likely read the statute to entitle the reporter to a reasonable salary. The opinion drew that from Vondy v. Comm'rs Court of Uvalde Cnty., where the Texas Supreme Court held that a constitutional provision making a constable's post salaried meant the constable was entitled to a reasonable salary. So whatever the back-and-forth over approval, the county would likely be required to provide a reasonable salary.

The hours question had a cleaner answer. An official court reporter appointed by the judge of a county court at law serves at the pleasure of that judge, and the opinion noted that court reporters work as the judge needs them rather than a fixed forty-hour week. The commissioners court's fiscal authority does not let it second-guess how a county officer uses employees to carry out the officer's statutory duties. So the commissioners court has no authority to limit the reporter's hours; the judge controls them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2012. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General 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.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The requesting district attorney and county (as the opinion described it): The opinion answered that the salary is a joint judge-plus-commissioners-court decision with neither side holding unilateral power, while the reporter's hours are the judge's call alone.

County court at law judges (as the opinion described it): The opinion treated the judge as the one who sets the reporter's salary (subject to approval) and as holding exclusive authority over the reporter's hours, since the reporter serves at the judge's pleasure.

Commissioners courts (as the opinion described it): The opinion read the commissioners court's role as an approval power it could withhold, but not as authority to set the salary unilaterally or to limit the reporter's hours.

Court reporters (as the opinion described it): The opinion concluded that a reviewing court would likely read the statute to entitle the official reporter to a reasonable salary, given that the position is statutorily salaried and indispensable to the court.

Common questions

Who has final authority over a county court at law reporter's salary in Texas?
Under the statute the opinion construed, neither the judge nor the commissioners court alone. The judge sets the salary and the commissioners court approves it, so it is a shared decision.

Can the commissioners court just set the salary itself?
No, the opinion said. It can withhold approval, but it cannot disregard the judge's action and unilaterally set the official court reporter's salary.

Is the reporter guaranteed a particular salary?
The opinion did not name a figure. It concluded that a reviewing court would likely read the statute to entitle the reporter to a reasonable salary, because the position is statutorily salaried and the court cannot operate without a reporter.

Who decides whether the reporter is full-time or part-time?
The judge. Because the reporter serves at the pleasure of the county court at law judge, the opinion concluded the judge controls the reporter's hours, and the commissioners court cannot limit them.

Background and statutory framework

The Van Zandt County Court at Law's enabling statute provides that the official court reporter "is entitled to receive a salary set by the judge of the county court at law with the approval of the commissioners court." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.2362(g) (West Supp. 2011). The commissioners court pointed to its general fiscal authority to set compensation for county employees paid from county funds, Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 152.011 (West 2008). The opinion read section 25.2362(g) in the context of chapter 25, subchapter C, which sets different salary mechanics for different statutory county courts.

For the hours question, the opinion relied on the rule that an official court reporter appointed by a county court at law judge serves at the pleasure of that judge. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 52.041 (West 2005). It cited prior opinions GA-0164 (2004), GA-0372 (2005), and GA-0155 (2004) for the point that court reporters serve as needed rather than a fixed week, and JC-0239 (2000) for the limit on a commissioners court second-guessing a county officer's use of employees.

The opinion drew its statutory-construction approach from R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water and Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Del Indus., Inc., its withholding-approval point from Vitopil v. Ware, and its reasonable-salary point from Vondy v. Comm'rs Court of Uvalde Cnty.

Citations

Cases:

• R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619, 628 (Tex. 2011)
• Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Del Indus., Inc., 35 S.W.3d 591, 593 (Tex. 2000)
• Vitopil v. Ware, 280 S.W.2d 378, 379-80 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1955, no writ)
• Vondy v. Comm'rs Court of Uvalde Cnty., 620 S.W.2d 104, 108-09 (Tex. 1981)
• Duncan v. Pogue, 759 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. 1988)

Statutes:

• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.2362(g) (West Supp. 2011)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 52.041 (West 2005)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 152.011 (West 2008)

Prior Attorney General opinions referenced:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0164 (2004)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0372 (2005)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0155 (2004)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0239 (2000)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0952
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2012/ga0952.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

June 18, 2012

The Honorable Chris Martin Opinion No. GA-0952
Van Zandt County Criminal District Attorney
400 South Buffalo Re: Final authority to set the salary of the official
Canton, Texas 75103 court reporter in the Van Zandt County Court at
Law, and to determine whether the position is
full-time or part-time (RQ-1039-GA)

Dear Mr. Martin:

You ask who has the final authority to set the salary of the official court reporter in the Van Zandt County Court at Law. You also ask who has the authority to determine whether the position is full-time or part-time.[1] Request Letter at 1.

Your question concerns the county court at law's enabling statute, which provides in part that "[t]he official court reporter of a county court at law is entitled to receive a salary set by the judge of the county court at law with the approval of the commissioners court." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 25.2362(g) (West Supp. 2011). You indicate that the commissioners court views its authority to "approve" the reporter's salary pursuant to section 25.2362 of the Government Code as equivalent to its general fiscal authority to "set the amount of the compensation, office and travel expenses, and all other allowances for county and precinct officers and employees who are paid wholly from county funds." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 152.011 (West 2008); Request Letter at 2-3.

When Texas courts construe a statute, they attempt to give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed in the plain language of the statute. R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619, 628 (Tex. 2011). A statutory provision should not be construed in isolation, but instead must be read in the context of the statutory scheme. See Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Del Indus., Inc., 35 S.W.3d 591, 593 (Tex. 2000).

Rather than create a uniform plan for all statutory county court reporters, the Legislature has addressed the compensation of court reporters in the enabling legislation specifically applicable to particular statutory county courts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. ch. 25 ("Statutory County Courts"), subch. C ("Provisions Relating to Particular Counties") (West 2004 & Supp. 2011). For example, the statutes governing the compensation of some statutory county court reporters state that the commissioners court sets the salary and do not expressly give the applicable county court at law judge a role. See id. §§ 25.0312(g) (Calhoun County Court at Law); 25.0932(k) (County Court at Law No. 2 of Grayson County); 25.1792(k) (Nolan County Court at Law) (West Supp. 2011). For other statutory county courts, the applicable provision states that the judge sets the salary and the commissioners court has a statutory duty to issue an order that effectuates payment of the court reporter. See id. §§ 25.1102(f) (Hidalgo County Court at Law); 25.1152(g) (Houston County Court at Law); 25.1762(g) (Nacogdoches County Court at Law). Still other statutes, such as the one applicable to the Van Zandt County Court at Law, provide that the judge sets the reporter's salary with the approval of the county's commissioners court. See id. §§ 25.1182(g) (Hunt County Court at Law); 25.1772(g) (Navarro County Court at Law); 25.2362(g) (Van Zandt County Court at Law).

Section 25.2362 requires the judge of the Van Zandt County Court at Law to set the official court reporter's salary and the commissioners court to approve the reporter's salary, which indicates that the court reporter's salary should reflect a collaborative—rather than unilateral—decision. Id. § 25.2362(g). The statute's language plainly requires action by both the county court at law judge and the commissioners court but does not indicate the bounds of authority for either the judge or the commissioners court. We are not aware of any judicial opinions that address a substantially similar grant of authority to a judge to set an official court reporter's salary with the commissioners court's approval.[2]

The grant of authority to approve a salary, in itself, suggests that the commissioners court has some discretion to withhold its approval. See Vitopil v. Ware, 280 S.W.2d 378, 379-80 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1955, no writ) (concluding a statute requiring the commissioner court's "consent and approval" of salary increases set by a district judge authorized the commissioners court to refuse to give its approval). However, in light of the statutory scheme in chapter 25, subchapter C, we do not believe the Legislature intended to give the Van Zandt County Commissioners Court the authority to disregard the judge's action and unilaterally set the salary of the official statutory county court reporter. Had the Legislature intended the judge or the commissioners court to have the sole authority to determine the reporter's salary, it could have written the statute to say so.

Because the relevant statute does not grant unilateral authority to one entity or the other, we cannot advise you that either the judge or the commissioners court has ultimate, independent authority to establish the county court at law reporter's salary. However, it is virtually impossible for a county court at law to function as a court of record without the services of a court reporter. Further, as a judge of a court of record, the Van Zandt County Court at Law judge is required by statute to appoint an official court reporter. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 52.041 (West 2005). Moreover, the enabling statute for the Van Zandt County Court at Law provides that the official court reporter is "entitled to receive a salary." Id. § 25.2362(g) (West Supp. 2011). Thus, in the absence of a clear statutory standard, a reviewing court would likely construe that statute as entitling the court reporter to receive a reasonable salary. See Vondy v. Comm'rs Court of Uvalde Cnty., 620 S.W.2d 104, 108-09 (Tex. 1981) (determining that constitutional provision that a constable holds a salaried position means that the constable is entitled to a reasonable salary). Consequently, regardless of the commissioners court's authority to approve the salary of the official court reporter for the county court at law, a court would likely conclude that the county is required to provide the court reporter with a reasonable salary.

We now consider your second question. You ask whether the county court at law judge or the commissioners court has paramount authority to decide whether the position of official court reporter is to be full- or part-time. Request Letter at 1. First, we observe that the statutes concerning the compensation of county court at law reporters do not distinguish between full- and part-time positions. Some statutes grant a court or commissioners court the option of contracting for a court reporter's services rather than appointing an official court reporter to a salaried position. See, e.g., TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 25.0042(h) (giving the judge of Anderson County Court at Law the option of contracting for a reporter's services); 25.1412(g) (granting the judge of the Lamar County Court at Law the option of contracting for a reporter's services); 25.1792(k) (granting the commissioners court for Nolan county the option of contracting for the services of a reporter for the county court at law) (West Supp. 2011). The statute that governs the Van Zandt County Court at Law only authorizes the appointment of an official reporter to a salaried position. Id. § 25.2362(g).

Second, an official court reporter appointed by a judge of a county court at law serves at the pleasure of the county court at law judge. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 52.041 (West 2005). As this office has previously explained, "court reporters serve the judges who appoint them, rather than work traditional 40-hour-per-week jobs; their jobs are described in terms of the tasks or duties to be performed, not the number of required hours." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0164 (2004) at 7. Because a court reporter serves at the pleasure of the county court at law judge, the reporter's hours of work are largely a matter of the judge's discretion. Id.[3] The commissioners court's fiscal authority does not allow it to "second-guess a county officer's use of county employees to accomplish the officer's constitutional or statutory duties." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0239 (2000) at 5. Accordingly, the Commissioners Court of Van Zandt County does not have the authority to limit the hours of work of the reporter of the Van Zandt County Court at Law.

SUMMARY

The judge of the Van Zandt County Court at Law is authorized to appoint an official court reporter and set the reporter's salary with approval of the commissioners court. The judge of the Van Zandt County Court of Law has exclusive authority to control the official court reporter's hours of work. Under section 25.2362(g) of the Government Code, neither the judge of the Van Zandt County Court at Law nor the Commissioners Court has exclusive authority to set the salary of the official court reporter. The Commissioners Court's authority to approve the salary of the County Court at Law court reporter does not include the authority to unilaterally set the reporter's salary. A reviewing court would likely conclude that Van Zandt County is required to provide the official court reporter for the County Court at Law a reasonable salary.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

JASON BOATRIGHT
Chair, Opinion Committee

William A. Hill
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Honorable Chris Martin, Van Zandt Cnty. Criminal Dist. Att'y, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Jan. 31, 2012), http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin ("Request Letter").

[2] Although we have received briefing urging that the authority of either the judge or the commissioners court to establish a court reporter's salary is paramount, none of the cited judicial opinions concerns a grant of authority substantially similar to that in section 25.2362 of the Government Code. See, e.g., Duncan v. Pogue, 759 S.W.2d 435, 435 (Tex. 1988) (concerning section 52.051 of the Government Code, generally applicable to district court reporters, which requires commissioners court approval only when the judge orders a pay increase in excess of ten percent); Comm'rs Court of Caldwell Cnty. v. Criminal Dist. Attorney, 690 S.W.2d 932, 939 (Tex. App.-Austin 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (concerning authority of the commissioners court to adjust the salary of an assistant "fixed" by the district attorney in the county budgeting process); Comm'rs Court of Lubbock Cnty. v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100, 107 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (concerning the district judge's authority to set probation department personnel salary "with the advice and consent" of the commissioners court).

[3] Opinions of this office have observed that the position of official court reporter need not necessarily be full time because court reporters typically serve as needed by the judge who appoints them rather than work a traditional 40-hour-per week job. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0372 (2005) at 3-4; GA-0164 (2004) at 7; GA-0155 (2004) at 6. No opinion, however, has suggested that any entity other than the judge served by the reporter may determine the reporter's hours of work.