Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

, OFFICE OF IHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Ii.W. Pit&m
county liu4itor
Faptte County
La Orangs, Texae
Dear Sirs
Your request f-0
0ar0runy oonali4ere4 by t
rsqueet &$a tollow81
n5.muazalary pay-
hree ItzaP am )otalled; an4
Is deduoted#2,$&O&O, the EB-
lvidsd by three. ,:Tothe result-
kdded the @us of ~2,750,00, the
total representingthe minimum ealary payable
to the County Attorney.
“The above'rmthodof ozlculatint: the mini-
mm salary is nommthod heretofore used
in this County, an4 it-0 to uz that in
forwlating your Opinion O-4281, your Depart-
meat did not realize that the
these caloulation8might zffm
minimum aalzry figure.
I
Bonorable H. K. Pit&an, Page 2
%3retofore, b'ayettecounty ha8 wed the
followingmethod of arrivingat the ~n~um
salary, to-wit: Be8 earned and aolUoteU
and f8e8 earned but not collsotedare totalled.
From this figure is deuuotsd the expenses of
the offioe. From the resulting figure (re-
aUnder) is deducted ;;2,750.00~This figure
is then divided by three and to the resulting'
amount itaatided$2,750.00 and the,ex-offioio
salary pal.4in 19?~5. -
RThe difference in the two osthods of
oalculationsis this: in your mathad, the
1935 ex-offioiosalary Is inoludad In the @al-
oulation befoee deductingthe $2,9BO.O0 and
dIdridingby three. In OUP aethod, the ex-
aifioio salary ir not inoluded u&IL after ttu
$2,750.00 has been deducted and t&r,divieion
by three is made.
*Par au axampleof the diff'ereno~ that
the method of oaloulatfonmakes there is at-
taohed hereto a oaloulation of the minimum
salary payable to the County Wmk based (1) OQ
your method and (2) on our method.
'Whtih method 1s oorreot7*
upon reconaideratlonwe hnn reaohed the oonolunlon
that the method of computation wed by UB in o in1011 NO* 04281
was lnoorrcrotand that your method of oompMat lp
on outlwned in
your letter I.0correot. See the aaao oi Anderson cou3jayv.
Hopkins, 187 S. 'i;r
1019, ublch hold8 t&titIlxoiiicriooompen-
satioa oannet be regardeda6 *exoesa fwuP landerArticle 9891,
V. A. C. 9.
opinion o-4221 is modirle4 a8 r03.mf4:
NO. It ie
our opinion undar the Paote stated ia opinion Ho. O-4221 that
the Commissioners*Court of FaysttQ County ia legally mqUir-
ed t.~a& the salary of the County Attorney of layette County
at $3,300.00 per annum.
Very truly yours
m 4, 1942 ATTOFtf?EY
OliNWsiT,
OF TEZiAS
/7 n