After Travis County changed its fiscal year, how much of the 1983 pay raise could county officials actually get?

Texas AG Opinion JM-27: County Salary Fiscal Year

Plain-English summary

Travis County switched its fiscal year to run October 1 through September 30, after adopting its 1982 budget on the old January-to-December calendar. The county auditor asked how that change affected the 1983 salaries of elected county officials.

The county's public notice listed proposed 1983 salaries with a January 1, 1983 effective date, and the commissioners court order gave an 11 percent cost-of-living increase "on an annualized basis." The auditor had been asked informally to pay a full year's raise compressed into the nine months remaining in the short fiscal year. JM-27 said the notice did not support that.

"The payment schedule informally requested would not comport with the notice given the public. The notice made no mention of the fact that the 1982 fiscal year was to be cut short or that the new 1983 salaries with a January 1 'effective date' were not intended to compensate the named officers for a full year from that date."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0027.pdf

Read consistently with the notice, the increase applied pro-rata across the calendar year, so officials received a pro-rata part of the 1983 salaries for the portion of the fiscal year after January 1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. 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

Were the raises void because of the notice problem?

No. The opinion did not throw out the raises. It read them to authorize the pro-rata 1983 salaries the notice supported, not the larger compressed payment.

"The 1983 salary increases for Travis County elected officials are not invalid, but in view of the fiscal year change by the county, such officers are entitled during the new fiscal year to only a pro-rata part of the 1983 annual salaries established."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0027.pdf

Why did the notice matter so much?

Because the salary statute required public notice of proposed raises, and a notice that misleads the public does not satisfy that requirement.

"A misleading notice is no notice."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0027.pdf

What did "on an annualized basis" mean here?

Because the order tied the increase to the calendar year rather than the new fiscal year, the phrase was read to mean a pro-rata adjustment for the applicable part of the fiscal year.

"the phrase 'on an annualized basis,' as used in the order, can and should be construed as referring to the period from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983, and to indicate a pro-rata adjustment for the applicable portion of the fiscal year in compliance with budgetary laws and notice provisions."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0027.pdf

Background and statutory framework

The statute art. 1644e let the county change its fiscal year. Section 2 of article 3912k required the commissioners court to set the salaries, expenses, and allowances of elected county and precinct officers during the budget process, and section 6 required at least 10 days' public notice of the intended salaries and the amount of proposed raises.

"Section 6 of that statute requires that the commissioners court exercise such authority only after 10 days notice 'of the intended salaries, expenses, and allowances to be raised and the amount of the proposed raises.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0027.pdf

Holding

"The 1983 salary increases for Travis County elected officials are not invalid, but in view of the fiscal year change by the county, such officers are entitled during the new fiscal year to only a pro-rata part of the 1983 annual salaries established."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0027.pdf

Citations and references

Statutes discussed by JM-27:

• "V.T.C.S., art. 1644e" Official PDF
• "article 3912k, V.T.C.S." Official PDF
• "V.T.C.S. art. 1666a" Official PDF

Cases cited by JM-27:

• "Colorado County v. J.M. English Truck Line, 265 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.)" Official PDF

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0027
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0027.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

April 26, 1983

Mr. Wilburn C. Rust
Travis County Auditor
Travis County Courthouse
Austin, Texas 78701

Opinion No. JM-27

Re: Salaries of Travis County officers for 1983

Dear Mr. Rust:

You advise that Travis County recently adopted a new fiscal year which begins October 1, 1982, and ends September 30, 1983. See V.T.C.S., art. 1644e. Previously, the county's fiscal year extended from January 1 to December 31 of each year, and the 1982 budget was adopted on that basis. You ask how the 1983 salaries of county officers will be affected by the change.

Section 2 of article 3912k, V.T.C.S., provides that the commissioners court shall set the salaries, expenses, and other allowances of elected county and precinct officers during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings. Section 6 of that statute requires that the commissioners court exercise such authority only after 10 days notice "of the intended salaries, expenses, and allowances to be raised and the amount of the proposed raises."

A notice was published by Travis County stating that adjustments to salaries and allowances for elected officials were to be considered on October 29, 1982, which would "include a cost of living adjustment of eleven (11) percent" and that the adjustments would not exceed certain "proposed 1983 amounts." The notice said nothing of "annualizing" the cost of living adjustments. It did, however, list a "1982 salary" and a "proposed increase," as well as a "proposed 1983" salary for each position, and it specified that the "effective date for any and all of the above considerations which might be approved is January 1, 1983." After adoption of an order giving elected officials a "cost of living increase on an annualized basis of 11% effective January 1, 1983," you were informally requested by the commissioners court to pay the 1982 salaries until January 1, 1983, but thereafter to pay the full 11% increase for twelve months during the next nine months to each officer named in the notice. This would result in an additional 3 2/3% for each of the nine months from January 1 through September 30.

The payment schedule informally requested would not comport with the notice given the public. The notice made no mention of the fact that the 1982 fiscal year was to be cut short or that the new 1983 salaries with a January 1 "effective date" were not intended to compensate the named officers for a full year from that date. A misleading notice is no notice. See Colorado County v. J.M. English Truck Line, 265 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, in the absence of proper notice of such salary increases, any attempted increase is invalid. See Attorney General Opinion MW-516 (1982).

In our opinion, the notice given would authorize the payment of the "proposed 1983" salaries on a pro-rata basis for the nine months remaining in the new October-to-September 1983 fiscal year after January 1, 1983, but would not authorize the payment of the 11% increase attributable to the last three months of 1982. The commissioners court order, as opposed to the informal request made of you, appears to adopt a pro-rata approach. It states in pertinent part:

It is here ordered by the Commissioners Court of Travis County that all Elected Officials be given a cost-of-living increase on an annualized basis of 11% effective January 1, 1983. (Emphasis added).

The order does not tie the increase to the new fiscal year, but rather makes the increase effective at the beginning of a calendar year. Under such circumstances the phrase "on an annualized basis," as used in the order, can and should be construed as referring to the period from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983, and to indicate a pro-rata adjustment for the applicable portion of the fiscal year in compliance with budgetary laws and notice provisions. See V.T.C.S. art. 1666a, 3912k. See generally 53 Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes §157, at 223.

SUMMARY

The 1983 salary increases for Travis County elected officials are not invalid, but in view of the fiscal year change by the county, such officers are entitled during the new fiscal year to only a pro-rata part of the 1983 annual salaries established.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Bruce Youngblood
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Bruce Youngblood