Could a general-law city increase its elected mayor's salary during the mayor's current term?

Texas AG Opinion JM-442: Mayor Salary Increase During a Term

Plain-English summary

Article 1010 required a general-law city's council to fix the mayor's salary before the election and said the compensation could not be changed during the term for which the officer was elected. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

JM-442 concluded that the prohibition was absolute: an elected mayor could not receive a salary increase during the current term. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Earlier cases treated the statutory deadline for initially fixing salaries as directory, but they did not permit a salary change during an incumbent's term. The prohibition against an in-term change remained mandatory. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. 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 council approve an increase during the term but make it effective immediately?

No. JM-442 said article 1010's plain terms forbade any compensation increase during the term for which the mayor was elected. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Did cases treating the January deadline as directory allow an in-term raise?

No. Those cases addressed when the council had to set compensation, not whether it could change compensation after the term began. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

What part of article 1010 was mandatory?

The requirement that compensation, once fixed, could not be changed during the elected or appointed officer's term. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Article 1010 directed the city council, on or before January 1 preceding each election, to set the salary and fees of the mayor to be elected at the next regular election and the compensation of officers elected or appointed by the council. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Relying on City of Uvalde v. Burney, the opinion distinguished the directory timing language from the mandatory prohibition on changing an officer's salary during the term. It also applied the statute's plain terms. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Citations and references

• article 1010, V.T.C.S.
• City of Uvalde v. Burney, 145 S.W. 311, 312 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1912, no writ)
• Railroad Commission of Texas v. Miller, 434 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex. 1968)

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0442
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0442.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF via OCR. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

February 21, 1986

Honorable Daniel W. Shindler
District Attorney
P.O. Drawer 2280
Bay City, Texas 77414

Opinion No. JM-442

Re: Whether an elected mayor may receive a salary increase at any time during his term

Dear Mr. Shindler:

You ask whether an elected mayor of a general law city may receive a salary increase at any time during his term or whether any such increase must take effect in the two-year term subsequent to that during which the salary increase was adopted. We conclude that article 1010, V.T.C.S., acts as an absolute impediment to the mayor receiving an increase in salary during his term.

Article 1010, V.T.C.S., provides the following:

The city council shall, on or before the first day of January next preceding each election, fix the salary and fees of office of the mayor to be elected at the next regular election, and fix the compensation to be paid to the officers elected or appointed by the city council. The compensation so fixed shall not be changed during the term for which said officers shall be elected or appointed. (Emphasis added).

It has been suggested that courts have construed the date provisions of the statutory predecessors of article 1010 to be permissive and not mandatory; therefore, it is suggested, a salary increase adopted at any time during the mayor's term is effective for that term notwithstanding the plain terms of the statute. We disagree with this construction of the cases construing article 1010 and conclude that the plain terms of article 1010 prohibit such an increase.

There is a line of cases which hold that the provisions of article 1010 which require city council action on or before the January 1 next preceding each election are directory and not mandatory; none hold, however, that a salary increase may be approved and made effective during the term of office of the officer whose salary is to be increased. As the court in City of Uvalde v. Burney, 145 S.W. 311, 312 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1912, no writ) declared:

The law in question is affirmative in requiring that the salaries of the city officers shall be fixed at a certain time, and we think [it] is merely directory. It will be presumed that the [l]egislature intended what was reasonable, and it would not cripple, or completely break down, a municipal corporation by a failure to name salaries at a certain time. The time is not essential to the perfect operation of the law, and there is really but one mandatory provision in it, and that is that when the salary has been once fixed or established it shall not be changed during the term for which the officer was elected or appointed. That provision is negatively expressed, and must necessarily be mandatory. The directions as to the time at which the appropriation for the salaries should be made is not of the essence of the duty to be performed; the main object of the law being to prevent an increase in salary during the incumbency in office. (Emphasis added).

137 S.W. 417 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1911, no writ). Neither article 1010 (nor its predecessors) nor the cases construing the statute permit the salary of a mayor to be increased and made effective during that officer's term. We must interpret the statute in a way which

expresses only the will of the makers of the law, not forced nor strained, but simply such as the words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanction and will clearly sustain.

Railroad Commission of Texas v. Miller, 434 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex. 1968). The plain terms of the statute clearly forbid any increase in compensation during the term for which the mayor is elected.

SUMMARY

The salary of a mayor of a general law city may not be increased during the term for which the mayor is elected.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Jim Moellinger
Assistant Attorney General