When does the deadline start for a Texas county officer to file a salary grievance?

Plain-English summary

Texas county and precinct officers who think the commissioners court has shortchanged them on salary can ask a salary grievance committee for a hearing, but the window to do so is tied to budget steps. Hale County Attorney James Tirey asked the Attorney General two questions about that process: whether two earlier AG opinions had correctly read the governing statutes, and which event in his county's budget process started the clock for filing a grievance.

On the first question, the opinion concluded that the two earlier opinions, GA-0051 (2003) and GA-0620 (2008), correctly construed sections 152.013 and 152.016 of the Local Government Code. Those opinions read the statutes to require a commissioners court to notify each elected county and precinct officer of the salary the court proposes to set, before the court approves the annual budget, so that an aggrieved officer has a real chance to request a grievance committee hearing and get a determination before the budget is final. The Hale County Attorney worried that this reading would bind the commissioners court to the salaries in its proposed budget and erase the court's discretion. The opinion disagreed: a commissioners court has broad discretion to set salaries, but the legal basis for what it does must be grounded in the constitution or statutes, so it must exercise that discretion consistently with state law. Read that way, the opinion said, the earlier construction was faithful to the plain statutory text and correct.

On the second question, which budget event counts as the notice that starts the filing deadline, the opinion gave a careful, fact-limited answer. Under the earlier opinions, the written notice to the officers marks the beginning of the grievance process, so on the county's own description of events the process appeared to have begun when the officers received the August 9, 2010 notice. But the opinion expressly did not decide whether that notice, or some other event, was sufficient legal notice under section 152.016, and it did not opine on whether any particular grievance request was timely; those were fact questions outside the opinion process. The summary restated the operative deadline: an aggrieved officer may request a hearing if, among other things, the request is delivered to the grievance committee chair within five days after the day the officer receives notice of the salary.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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

County and precinct officers (as the opinion held for them): The opinion confirmed that the commissioners court had to tell them the salary it proposed before approving the budget, preserving their chance to seek a grievance hearing, and that the request had to reach the grievance committee chair within five days after they received notice of the salary.

Commissioners courts (as the opinion described it): The opinion treated the court as retaining discretion to set salaries, but required it to exercise that discretion consistently with state law, including the notice obligation.

On the specific Hale County timeline (where the opinion stopped): The opinion declined to decide whether the August 9, 2010 notice was sufficient legal notice or whether any particular grievance request was timely, treating those as fact questions it could not resolve.

Common questions

Did the Attorney General overturn the earlier salary-grievance opinions?
No. The opinion concluded that GA-0051 (2003) and GA-0620 (2008) correctly construed sections 152.013 and 152.016 of the Local Government Code.

Does the commissioners court have to tell officers their proposed salary before adopting the budget?
Yes. The opinion read the statutes to require the court to notify each elected county and precinct officer of the proposed salary before it approves the annual budget.

How long does an officer have to file a salary grievance?
The opinion's summary stated that the request must be delivered to the grievance committee chair within five days after the day the officer receives notice of the salary, among other requirements.

Did the opinion say exactly when the Hale County deadline started?
No. The opinion declined to decide whether the August 9, 2010 notice was sufficient legal notice or whether a particular request was timely, calling those fact questions outside the opinion process.

Background and statutory framework

A commissioners court sets the compensation of county and precinct officers during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings, and before filing the annual budget with the county clerk it must give written notice to each elected county and precinct officer of the officer's salary to be included in the budget. Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 152.013. An officer who is aggrieved by the setting of the salary may request a hearing before the salary grievance committee before approval of the county's annual budget. Id. § 152.016. The opinion grounded its reading in the principle that, although a commissioners court has broad discretion, the legal basis for its action must ultimately rest in the constitution or statutes. Guynes v. Galveston Cnty., 861 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tex. 1993). Courts ascertain and give effect to legislative intent by construing statutory language according to its plain meaning unless that would lead to absurd results. City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625-26, 629 (Tex. 2008). The constitution requires the Attorney General to give legal rather than practical advice to authorized requestors. Tex. Const. art. IV, § 22.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 152.013
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 152.016
• Tex. Const. art. IV, § 22

Cases:

• Guynes v. Galveston Cnty., 861 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tex. 1993)
• City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625-26, 629 (Tex. 2008)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0865
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2011/ga0865.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

July 28, 2011

The Honorable James M. Tirey Opinion No. GA-0865
Hale County Attorney
500 Broadway, Suite 340 Re: Deadline for initiating a salary grievance
Plainview, Texas 79072 proceeding by a county or precinct officer
(RQ-0922-GA)

Dear Mr. Tirey:

You ask two questions about the salary grievance process for county and precinct officers.[1] Your first question is whether two opinions of this office, GA-0051 (2003) and GA-0620 (2008), correctly construed sections 152.013 and 152.016 of the Local Government Code. Request Letter at 1, 2.

Opinion GA-0620 noted that a commissioners court sets the amount of compensation for county and precinct officers "'at a regular meeting of the [commissioners] court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings.'" Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0620 (2008) at 3 (quoting section 152.013(a) of the Local Government Code). Opinion GA-0051 advised that 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 ... to be included in the budget.'" Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0051 (2003) at 2 (quoting section 152.013(c) of the Local Government Code). Both opinions noted that an officer "'who is aggrieved by the setting of the officer's salary ... may request a hearing before the salary grievance committee before the approval of the county's annual budget.'" Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0620 (2008) at 3, GA-0051 (2003) at 2 (quoting section 152.016(a) of the Local Government Code).

You are concerned that under "the construction adopted by ... GA-0051 and GA-0620, the salary grievance process could become meaningless" because "[w]hen the commissioners court adopted the annual budget at the final budget hearing and did not include the proposed increase in salary, the officer would have no recourse to the grievance process." Request Letter at 4. However, GA-0051 and GA-0620 both opined that under section 152.013(c) of the Local Government Code, the "commissioners court must notify elected officers of proposed salaries and expenses after having received the proposed budget from the county judge, but sufficiently before the court's approval so that an aggrieved officer can receive a determination from the salary grievance committee." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0620 (2008) at 3 (quoting Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0051 (2003) at 4). Opinion GA-0620 also noted that the "commissioners court's duty to notify the officer continues until [it] has filed the final budget with the county clerk" and "the recommendations of the grievance committee must be presented to the commissioners court before the court files its final budget with the county clerk." Id. at 3, 4. Thus, GA-0051 and GA-0620 construed section 152.013 in a way that would require a commissioners court to give an officer the opportunity to request a grievance committee hearing.[2]

You are concerned that this construction "would appear to bind the commissioners court to the salaries ... included in the proposed budget" and that this "disregards the discretion of the commissioners court in setting a county budget." Request Letter at 3, 4. However, "although a commissioners court may exercise broad discretion ... , the legal basis for any action [it takes] must be grounded ultimately in the constitution or statutes." Guynes v. Galveston Cnty., 861 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tex. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, GA-0051 and GA-0620 advised that sections 152.013 and 152.016 require a commissioners court to notify county and precinct officers of the amount at which the court chooses to set the officers' salaries before the court approves them. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0620 (2008) at 4, GA-0051 (2003) at 4. Thus, both opinions noted that a commissioners court has authority to set county and precinct officers' salaries but opined that a commissioners court must exercise its discretion consistently with state law. See generally Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0620 (2008), GA-0051 (2003). This construction is faithful to the plain language of the statutory text and logical. See Guynes, 861 S.W.2d at 863 (holding that the legal basis for a commissioners court's act must ultimately be grounded in the constitution or statutes). Consequently, it is correct. See City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625-26, 629 (Tex. 2008) (holding that courts ascertain and give effect to legislative intent by construing statutory language according to its plain meaning unless it would lead to absurd results).[3]

You also ask which event in the Hale County budget process "constitutes notice to determine the deadline for filing a request for a hearing with the salary grievance committee[.]" Request Letter at 4. You write that on August 9, 2010, the commissioners court filed a proposed budget with the county clerk, and the county auditor sent a memo to all elected officers stating that their salaries would remain the same as they were under the then-current budget. Id. at 1. You state that "[n]o further written notice regarding proposed salaries was given to officers or department heads after the August 9, 2010, memorandum." Request Letter at 2 n.3. GA-0620 opined that "'[t]he written notice provided to the elected officers marks the beginning of the grievance process ....'" Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0620 (2008) at 3 (quoting Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0051 (2003) at 2). Therefore, according to your description of events and under previous opinions of this office, the grievance process appears to have begun when officers received the August 9 notice.[4]

SUMMARY

Attorney General Opinions GA-0051 and GA-0620 correctly construed sections 152.013 and 152.016 of the Local Government Code.

An elected county or precinct officer aggrieved by the setting of the officer's salary may request a hearing before the salary grievance committee if, among other things, the request is delivered to the grievance committee chair within five days after the day the officer receives notice of the salary.

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID J. SCHENCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

JASON BOATRIGHT
Chair, Opinion Committee

Jason Boatright
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Honorable James M. Tirey, Hale County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas at 1 (Sept. 29, 2010), https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opin/index_rq.shtml ("Request Letter").

[2] GA-0051 modified opinions DM-405 and JC-0471 to the extent that they construed section 152.013 to require a commissioners court to notify elected officers of their salaries "'after the commissioners court has adopted the budget, but before filing it with the county clerk.'" Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0051 (2003) at 4 (citing Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-405 (1996) at 4 and Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0471 (2002) at 1-2). GA-0051 noted that section 152.016(a) did not, at the time DM-405 was issued, "require an aggrieved officer to request a hearing 'before the approval of the county's annual budget.'" Id. (quoting section 152.016(a) of the Local Government Code).

[3] You write that "Opinions Nos. GA-0051 and GA-0620 do not seem to take [the practical reality of the county budgeting process into account] in arriving at their conclusions." Request Letter at 3. The constitution expressly requires the Attorney General to provide legal rather than practical advice to authorized opinion requestors, but the following suggestion in GA-0620 appears to be useful and sensible: "[W]e recommend commencing the [budget and salary-setting processes] as early as possible in order to comply with the intricacies of the two schemes." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0620 (2008) at 5. See also TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 22 (listing the Attorney General's duties).

[4] We do not determine whether that notice or another event may constitute sufficient legal notice under section 152.016. See Request Letter at 1 (asking your question "[u]nder the facts presented"). Consequently, we do not opine on whether a particular request for a salary grievance hearing is timely.