Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable Roger Thurmond Dlstrlot Attorney Sixty-Third Judlolal Dlstrlot Del Rio, Texas Dsar Sir: less than 25,000 lnhabltants,,onndemand the msxl- mumsalpox alloved uru3er,thle,~statuto, where 811 the C6imty~'WXIolals eaumereted are reoelvlng the maxlknua4mneflts regardle?e~ of fees received in 1935, ~ult``'the,excepti``arthe county Attorney. Aod vhether ur bt In your oplnlon, if all auoh of- fiolals are &o rtielvlng the maxlmum benefits, vlth tho exoeptlon ei that ss County Attorney, la this diacrinlnetorjr, ad to this offloe. i .d' ., ' "PC&Zgout.*lnZOrdlOn thl8 fiPplI4Sto the office of Uountg Attorney In Maverick County, for which I have been asked for an opinion In this mstter." tiwerick County has a population of lC,O*?linhabitants acoordlng to the 1340 Federal Census. The aaaeaaed valuation la leas than $10,000,000.00according to the last preceding approved tax roll of such County. Voraoa'8 Anaotatsd Clvll aoot1oa15, &tlol* 3912ahr sta tutea ma , de l mlla 8a “Th sC~@ @ Ia l8r 8’ c o vr tin 0wa tto 8lm 0 doPul8t1ol.of 1088 thaa tvutty thml88&l (20, 53 ) Lnhabltantn, loooob~ to thm l88t miag~ ?o&eml c8Mw at the ifrat mgulu moot eaoh 48loIa8ryeerr ry pear aa o o mp tma oa rtlo llloo ma t a M o a o la oo fflo t Qo sr a 8sr l8rb y a r frme.c ~881 -* c o wtla 088b or Enlahooutltloslirhee~mlt~me,a~lt rhrllk its dutt, to tlx the ralsrlor of C~&mlnal snOtriot 88.8 ausb or- : oompenaatioabyraid offioerbhlr said Paolty ror the M0w1 S*rr or 19358sd aot O=t#i%r 1 thomaxImmcrllar& •wh&fl4~uW~l8v8~8t~ August24th,l93!i,8ad not mom tbaathemxlmu fmount allwad nwh orfboP u&or l8u8 a.iat~ A-t 2&h, 1935, pswidad, that irr omat a pqmlatlonoilerrtho.ntw&ytharsrrd lnhabltarat8,8ooordLng to tbo 1.88 pllwbd~ i'edml ago ofzxlOzwl4oFa~tLosrumltnlu8ti4uudgswtded furthewth8tin8lloountle8bs 8 populatiacror sot lea8 then tventythouaaad end ead not more thun tventy-five thou88ld (25,ooo), 800ordfng to the lamt p``oediag Fade~!~l COMU~, 8rd vhioh h08 @a 888088ti vsluEt~ollinexoe88 of'hrsnt 41rrmll1on (025,wo,ow.00) Dollar8 eoaonV.ng to the 1881 pr4Oodbg sppFW4d tax roll of suoh oountle8, the oountr ju&e, sheriff, OsUty at- torney, aaeemaon and oolleotor of t6%0m, 00uRtJ olepk ~rd dlstrLot Olerk, the asxiwm sal8x-y18 hemby fix4d at Three Thousaad Seven lhuvbed sod Fifty ($3,750&O) Dollerr. 588 Ecnorable Roger Thurmond, p8ge 3 “The OaPpeMatlOn of a CrlmlMl Dlstrlot Attorney, or County Attorney who periorms the duties of Dlrtrlot Attorneya, togethor with the oompenSatiOn of hi8 8s@i@tallt@, Shall be paid out or the county orrioera~ S8lery Fund, but the State shall pay lnt0 8UOh Rrnd eaoh pear an 8mWnt equal to e sum vhloh beam the mameproportion to the tot81 s8lary OS suoh CHmlnsl Dlrtriot Attommy, or County Attorney perfomaing the dutieo OS a Dlr- trlot Attorney, together with the salery OS his as3lst8nt8, es 811 Se10nJ fee8 cOlleOted by suoh oSSlolal during the year of 1935 bear? to the total fees colleoted by suoh oSSloi81 during suah year.” (Duplioatlon of vords “und not mope than the maxi- mumallowed such offloer under lavs existing August 24, 1935" appears in enrolled bill.) As Maverlok County has a population of lerr than twenty thousand (‘20,000) lnhabltants aooording to the 1940 Federal Census, the foregobig provisions of Seotlon 15 of Art1010 39120 are rppll- Cable to said county. The sela~4es of the county osrioiaie 0r Msverlolr must be determined a& fixed l.n aooordance with the p~ovlsfons of Artloles 3883, 3891 end Sootion 15, Artlole 3912e, 08 the Cmmisrlonera~ Court OS said County h8s provided for the oompensation of all County OSSloers on e salary basla under the ProvisiOnS OS 88id Seoflou 15. (See the oaae of Naoogdooher Co. v. Winder, 140 9. W. (26) 972). This department held ln Opinion no. O-744 “Them v88 no p~ovlsion of the statute guermnteelng the oSflos~ he should first reoslvs the amount allowed under the prWlsioM of Art1010 3883, so that the offloer had to pay euthorlsed expendIturea out of the funds ooming into his hands, lrrespeotlve OS vhether the amoUnt mentioned in the Art1010 vas oarned OF oolleoted. Therefore, the total sum earned as compensation by him vas the net total earnned after payment of his authorized expenses. The Legislature did not stipulate ‘earned by the office8 but rather earned by him.” On December 3, 1937, this depmtment held, in the Opinion vritten by Honorable James N. North, Assistant Attorney General, addressed to Mr. blllllamJ, Fanning, County AttoPMy, Hopkins County, Texas, that in arriving at the correot min¶mm ,589 Honorable Bxer Thursmd, PBm 4 to be paid omnty offioers uader ths Salaq Bill that the Court should oonsldor the saouat of fees earned a& unoolleoted, 8s voll as fees oollooted for the year 1935, TN8 oplnloa further held that an ox a??loZo salary paid to the o??loe~ for the year 1935 should be oomldeti io OFFLV~Q et the a-eat minlmm to be gaid suoh offioer. In risv QS the forsgobg pa sre respeotfully advfssti t.hstit is the apinioa of this department thst the msxlmumsslary of the county o??lolal~ of Mnveriok County, named ln Artlols 39lr, fcr the year 1935, osnnot uoeed the Bumof $3,000.00uoh. rninlmumoalarj of the oountf o??loial~ of said oounty oannot be less than the total sum earned as ocuspensation by said offioers in their said o??Loial oapaoities for the fiscal year of 1935. Stated differently, the Coum1I88ioaer8~ Court of said oounty is authorized by Seotlao 15, Artiole 3912e, to fix the salaries of eoci~ of the ocwty o??loi~l~ St not less thsn the total sum urnsd as oompensatlon by esoh of said officers in their said ofriolal capacities for the fiscal ysar 1935 and not mm than the msximum elloved euoh o??lcer~ uader lavs eXLstUg August 24, 1935. Acoordlzig to the lnfomstion oontained In your letter, It is apparent that 811 of the oounty o??lol8l8 OS Msmrlok County, except the Couty Attorney,rsoeivo the msximupssalaries lllaved by 1~ for their affloial servioer. Ye assume frcis ths faots stated in your lettor that the salary of the Couaty Attoraey is not less then the total sum earned as ocmpensatfoa by said offloer in hfa said offioial oapnolty for the fSsoa1 yea2 o? 1935, but 18 not aa muoh as the maximumsalary all0m-l hy lav in Hsvorlok County. It is our opinlon that 1-t t:, wholly vlthln the disore- tion of the Commissioaers~ Court in detemnlning aad fixing the salaries of oounty o??loSal~ to detrrmip, the amount of Oompensatl~a for each of salti oouaty offioials provided the sala- of eaoh county offioial shsll not ha less than the total sum earned as oompensatloa by Bald officer in his said offioial capaooity for the flsoal year 1335, and not more than the praxiuiumalloved suoh o??loerunder lava edsting August 24, 1935. The Conmissfoaers 1 Court is not required to fix the salaries of the ooumty o??loialB St the BB~B amount, but as heretofaFe stated, It is vholly vithla their dlsoretion to deter- r~rine and fix the salary of eaoh of the said oounty o??lolal~ at not less than tho minimum nor more thsn the maxl``um,and that there Is CO cjisorlminationvlMir the salaries of suoh 00Unt orfiaials are