Could a Washington sheriff set deputy salaries contrary to the county commissioners’ decision in 1984?

Plain-English summary

The Washington Attorney General concluded in 1984 that county commissioners, rather than the sheriff, fixed deputy sheriffs’ compensation. The civil-service provision cited in the question said it would not impair salary-setting authority an appointing officer might have, but the AG read that language as preserving existing authority, not granting new authority.

The opinion paired that provision with the county-officer statute, which said, “The board shall fix their compensation.” On that reading, the sheriff could not set deputy salaries without regard to the commissioners’ decision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. 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.

Common questions

Could the sheriff independently set deputy pay?
No. The opinion assigned that authority to the board of county commissioners.

Did the civil-service initiative give the sheriff new pay-setting power?
No. The AG said it merely protected any authority the appointing officer already possessed.

Could the sheriff appoint deputies?
The opinion described the sheriff as the appointing power, while distinguishing selection of deputies from fixing their compensation.

Background and statutory framework

The county prosecutor asked whether the sheriff’s civil-service provision overrode the county statute on deputy compensation. The AG reconciled the two provisions and gave effect to the commissioners’ express duty to fix compensation.

Citations and references

• Statutes discussed: RCW 41.14.140; RCW 36.16.070.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/authority-fix-salaries-deputy-sheriffs

Original opinion text

Attorney General Ken Eikenberry

OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- COUNTY ‑- COMMISSIONERS ‑- SHERIFF ‑- SALARIES OR COMPENSATION ‑- AUTHORITY TO FIX SALARIES OF DEPUTY SHERIFFS

RCW 41.14.140 does not authorize, or empower, a county sheriff to fix the compensation of his deputies without regard to what the board of county commissioners might have determined.

March 6, 1984

Honorable James P. McNally
Prosecuting Attorney
Pend Oreille County
P.O. Box 470
Newport, WA 99156

Cite as: AGO 1984 No. 9

Dear Sir:

By recent letter you requested our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:

Does RCW 41.14.140 authorize, or empower, a county sheriff to fix the compensation of his deputies, regardless of what the board of county commissioners might have determined?

We answer the foregoing question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.

ANALYSIS

RCW 41.14.140, which you have cited, is a part of the state law governing civil service for deputy sheriffs. That law was originally enacted in 1958, as an initiative measure. RCW 41.14.140, codifying § 14 of Initiative Measure No. 23, reads as follows:

"All offices, places, positions, and employments coming within the purview of this chapter, shall be filled by the appointing power with the consent of the board of county commissioners, and nothing herein contained shall infringe upon such authority that an appointing power may [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] have to fix the salaries and compensation of all employees employed hereunder."

See also, RCW 41.14.020(2) which defines the term "appointing power," for the purposes of the above‑quoted provisions, to mean,

". . . the county sheriff who is invested by law with power and authority to select, appoint, or employ any deputy, deputies or other necessary employees subject to civil service;"

In addition, however, we find in the preexisting text of RCW 36.16.070 the following language:

"In all cases where the duties of any county office are greater than can be performed by the person elected to fill it, the officer may employ deputies and other necessary employees with the consent of the board of county commissioners. The board shall fix their compensation and shall require what deputies shall give bond and the amount of bond required from each. The sureties or deputies' bonds must be approved by the board and the premium therefor is a county expense.

"A deputy may perform any act which his principal is authorized to perform. The officer appointing a deputy or other employee shall be responsible for the acts of his appointees upon his official bond and may revoke each appointment at pleasure." (Emphasis supplied)

These two statutes must be read together, and reconciled, in order to give full effect to each of them to the extent possible. State ex rel. Reed v. Spanaway Water District, 38 Wn.2d 393, 229 P.2d 532 (1951) and cases cited therein. With that in mind we next note that even on its face, RCW 41.14.140, supra, does not purport to affirmatively vest the county sheriff, as the appointing power, with the authority to fix the compensation of those personnel who he appoints. Rather, that section of the civil service initiative merely says that whatever authority the appointing power may have, in that regard, is not to be impaired, or infringed upon, by ". . . anything herein contained."

In turn, on that count, RCW 36.16.070, supra, seems to us to be plain, clear and unambiguous. Once again it says, in speaking of those deputies and employees appointed, or employed, by a particular county officer, that:

[[Orig. Op. Page 3]]

". . . The board shall fix their compensation . . ."

We therefore conclude that it is the board of county commissioners, and not the county sheriff, which is lawfully empowered to fix the compensation of deputy sheriffs.

We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,
KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY
Attorney General

PHILIP H. AUSTIN
Senior Deputy Attorney General