Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. , OFFICE OF THE Al-kORNtiYGENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Q-C.- _’ A-- nonorsble Keeldon3, Davis county Attorliey Aust.inCounty IjelLville,Texas zqar sir: , correctly advise orders auly mite soa entered of recwa at its first reg.&r ne9tinc in Janunry or each cult-ndaryem since the effective data Gi:.4xtic1o391% or the i;cvisQdcivil stat- utes of Tom:;18 deierninsd that thu cwnty of- fioors of ;,ustinCounty shsll be 003;.enmtea on the b"sIs of fees enrnd by thornin the .. c-- , 328 Szlorable\FolaonB. Davis, Page 2 perfomance of their official duties. On April 22, 1939, e vacancy occurred in the ofrice of County Attorney of Austin County. On said date, April 22, 1939, an8 during tho time the vacancy existed end before the appointmentto fill the vacancy wes made, the Commissioners'Court by en order duly made and entered of record reduced the ex- officio compensationto bo paid the County Attorney of Austin County from and after said date from $1800.00 per year, or $150.00 I@; ;;;t";,to 31200.00 per year, or $100.00 Ths ex-offioio compensation of . , BlOOO.OO'~r * year had been fixed et the first regular msetin~ of the Comisaioners’ court in *IDmary, 1939. On April 25, 1939, three days after such order reducing the ex- ,officiooompensationwas amae end entered of record, the Commissioners*Court made the appointmentof a-County Attorney to fill'the vacancy,and the person’ 80 appointed accepted ouch eppointmcntand qualified es suoh officer with full knowledge of the action of the Com- mlosioners'Court in reducing the ex-officio compensationto be paid such offioer, and in fact suoh appointee before accepting such appointmentand before qualifying for such office oxpressea to the Commissioners*Gcurt his satisfacticnand his willingness to serveas County Attorney at such reduced ex- officio coaponsation. He hcs now, howevsr, presentedto the Commissioners*C0urt his claimfor additional ex-officio comyensation for the period from tho date of his quualifi- Cetion to the end of the year 1939 at the rate of $50.00 per month, that being the amount the ox-officio oomgensaticnwos re- duced by the order of the Court made and ontorod on April 22, 1939. The exact ques- tion thus presented is whether the Corzi~fts- slonsrsrCourt cl"Austin County unacr the faots related ooul,fiat a m::otingother than the first regular mseting in January of each Year enter ,anorder reducing or deorsaslng the ex-officiocompensationto be paid the County Attorney for future sorvicos. BonorableiY&lon 1).Eavi~, Rage 3 "In briefing the question 1 have come to the oonclusion that the provisions of Article 3912e of the Revised Civil Statutes relating to the tines and the amounts and the manner of fixing the salaries of county officers, and the recent cases together vtith the opinions handed down by your offike con- struing the provisions of this article, have no application to the question presented for the reason that Austin County is coszpensating its officers on a fee basis and not on a 'salarybasis, Any authority the Corn&saioners* Court has to allow, ohange or modify conpensa- tion for ex-officio services must be derived from kticle 3895 of the i?evlsed Civil Ctotutoa of Texas and the constructiongiven said ar- tiole by the oourts of our State. In my opinion the case of ColllngaworthCounty vs. Xyers, 35 s. W. 414, definitely settles the issue and cor- rectly answers the question in the affirmative. Ry conolusion that the CGurt could on April 22, 1939, end as for that netter at any time, lava- fully enter the order ohanging or reducing the ex-ofSici0 congensationof the County Attorney, for future services is Purthor fortified by the statementsfound under the title 'Fublic Of- Hoers* in 3-i Taxes Jurisprudence,tee. 107, on page 511, and in the saiaevoluroeand under the same title on pages 526-329, Sec..llS, end the authorities there 0itea.n We have oarefully considered your letter, together *lth the statutes and authorities mentioned therein, and agree Eith the cmcluelon reaohod bjryou, Article 3693, VernGn'a .AnnotatedCivil Statutes, rd.5 as f0110~s: *The Co!r&saiunerslCourt is hereby .debarredIrGm nllouing compensationfor ex- off1010 services to county officials when the ccnpensationma excess fee3 vM.ch Lhey are allowed to rctsin shall reach the marimur~ provided for.in this chapter. In cases -Jihsre the oonpcnsationand exce:~sfoes which the officers are allozed to retain shall not reach the nsximm provided for in this chapter, Court shzll allovrcGm:ensa-~ the ~bsxa3.ssioner.s~ tion for ox officio sGrvicezBwhen, in their gonorab16 -WeldonB. aavis, FaCe 4 Judgment,,such cocpensation is ns&,+sary, prodded, such compensationfor ex officio services allo;iedshall not increase the compensationof the offioial beyond the maxlnum of compen6ation and excess fees alloviodto be retained,by bin under this chapter. Provided, however, the ex of- fioio herein authorized shall be alloned only after an opportunity for a publid hearing and only upon the affirmative vote of at least three megbars of the ~ommissioners~Court." We quote from Texas Turisprudence,Vol. S?, P. 527, , 88 fol.loss: ** * * the coCnissioners*oourt has powor to fix the co3lpensationof an officer, it nay change the amount at any time, oven during his term of office. Thus its orders fixing the compensation of officers for ex- officio services are not contracts or juag- manta against the ccunty, and may be ohangcd, modified, repealed or revoked at any tine before the nonoy $5~ tczually been paid Out to the officer. . we quote from the ca6e of CollinysworthCounty v. Lydrs,35 s. iv.414, as follows: r* + * t:eare of opinion that, in auditing ani fixing the onounto to be paid 6uch officers for ex offioio scrvicas, the 00~ii3sionersfcourt acts in a legislative capccity Roro than in a judicial, and that such orders are not judE)I;lents against the Ccunty, and that, whenever the cozzissionera Oonclude, for any reason, that such allowances are too great or too ~~11, they have the Sight and power, at any time before the xeoneyis actwlly paid out to the officer, to change, modify, or even sntiroly repeal or revokes the order. * r,*.n In view of tho for'ei;OIng authorities, the above stated W6tion is answsred in the affirmatlvo. . . ,.._ 33-J I gonorableC6ldon B, Dovia,.Fage 5 Trusting that the foregoing fully answsrs your lncplry,rreare I rrdell ‘XilllnmS Assi6tant .