KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
December 21, 2015
The Honorable Marco A. Montemayor Opinion No. KP-0052
Webb County Attorney
1110 Washington Street, Suite 301 Re: Authority of a commissioners court,
Laredo, Texas 78040 after adoption of the budget, to adopt a
standing budget policy that automatically
reduces the salary line item of an employee of
an elected official upon the employee's
departure from the position (RQ-0033-KP)
Dear Mr. Montemayor:
You ask about a commissioners court's authority, after adopting its annual budget, to adopt
a standing budget policy that automatically reduces the salary line item for a position when an
employee departs from the position. 1 You state that the Webb County Commissioners Court
adopted its 2014-2015 fiscal year budget on September 22, 2014, under subchapter B of the Local
Government Code. Request Letter at 2-3. You further state that in November 2014, the
commissioners court adopted "standing orders" or budget policy "requiring that during the fiscal
year, the county administrative services department [the "Department"] will immediately reduce
the salary, as directed by [the county's adopted policy], upon the vacancy of any county employee
slot, regardless of department or elected office." Id. at 3. You explain that the "policy requires all
salaries of vacated slots ... to be reduced to an original starting point which is drastically lower.
than the originally budgeted, approved and adopted salary." Id. You further explain that a
reduction pursuant to the policy requires no action by the commissioners court and is executed
according to a predetermined line-item transfer of the excess to another line item. Id. at 4. You
inform us that, after the court coordinator for the 406th District Court retired during the year, the
district judge for the court hired a new court coordinator and requested that compensation for the
position continue at the salary level budgeted in September 2014. Id. at 3. You state that the
Department refused the compensation request due to the standing-orders policy that would require
a reduction in salary for a position that has been vacated and filled by a new employee. Id. You
further state, however, that the commissioners court has agreed to pay the court coordinator for
the remainder of the fiscal year the amount budgeted in September 2014. Id.
While your- questions contain multifarious sub-issues, in essence you ask two questions.
The first is whether a commissioners court is authorized to adopt standing orders to reduce a
position's salary when the position has been vacated and filled by a new employee, without further
1
See Letter from Honorable Marco A. Montemayor, Webb Cty. Att'y, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y
Gen. at l (July 15, 2015), https://www.texasattomeygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").
The Honorable Marco A. Montemayor - Page 2 (KP-0052)
action by the comm1ss10ners court. The second question 1s whether such orders may be
implemented with respect to a court coordinator.
A commissioners court has "only those powers expressly given by either the Texas
Constitution or the Legislature" and "the implied authority to exercise the power necessary to
accomplish its assigned duty." City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 28 (Tex.
2003). But a commissioners court's duty to manage a county's financial affairs "carries with it
broad discretion in making budgetary decisions." Griffin v. Birkman, 266 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tex.
App.-Austin 2008, pet. denied). A commissioners court has general authority to set the salaries
of most county employees. TEX. Loe. Gov'T CODE§ 152.011. Salary levels are among the fiscal
matters considered during the preparation of the county's annual budget under one of three
subchapters in chapter 111 of the Local Government Code that are applicable to particular
counties. Id. §§ 111.001-.014 (subchapter A, budget preparation in counties with a population of
225,000 or less), .031-.045 (subchapter B, budget preparation in counties with a population of
more than 225, 000), .061-. 07 5 (subchapter C, alternative method of budget preparation in counties
with a population of more than 125,000). After final adoption of the county's budget, the
commissioners court must "spend county funds only in strict compliance with the budget," with
limited exceptions. Id. §§ 111.0lO(b), .041(b), .070(a). Thus, once a salary has been approved
and adopted in the final budget, it cannot be reduced except as permitted under chapter 111. See
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0131 (1999) at 3 (stating "once the salaries of county officers and
employees are set, the salaries may not be reduced, outside of the regular budget adoption and
amendment process").
Chapter 111 provides two exceptions that allow a commissioners court to amend a final
budget. First, the final budget may be amended for an emergency expenditure, but only in "a case
of grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that could not have been
included in the original budget through the use of reasonably diligent thought and attention." TEX.
Loe. Gov'T CODE§§ 111.0lO(c), .041(b), .070(b). Because, as you describe it, the standing order
·to reduce a salary is automatic without regard to particular circumstances, it is not authorized under
the emergency exception. Second, a commissioners court may amend the budget outside of an
emergency by transferring an amount budgeted for one item to another budgeted item. Id.
§§ 111.0lO(d), .041(c), .070(c)(l). In particular circumstances, courts have upheld the reduction
of a salary by transfer from one budgeted item to another. See Gattis v. Duty, 349 S.W.3d 193,
207 (Tex. App.-Austin 2011, no pet.); Griffin, 266 S.W.3d at 201-02. We are not aware of any
provision in chapter 111 that prohibits as a matter oflaw the adoption of an order that automatically
transfers funds budgeted for a position when the position has been vacated and filled by a new
employee. 2 But whether a commissioners court may transfer funds budgeted for the salary of a
2
A commissioners court may not delegate its powers requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion absent
statutory authority. Guerra v. Rodriguez, 239 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Tex. eiv. App.-San Antonio 1951, no writ).
Accordingly, a commissioners court may not delegate its discretionary authority to transfer funds from one item to
another except as authorized by law. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0154 (2004) at 4. But see TEX. Loe. Gov'T
CODE§ 11 l.070(c) (2) (authorizing a commissioners court in a county operating under subchapter C, to designate
another officer or employee to "amendthe budget by transferring amounts budgeted for certain items to other budgeted
The Honorable Marco A. Montemayor - Page 3 (KP-0052)
specific employee consistently with chapter 111 and other applicable law depends on the particular
circumstances. For example, a commissioners court may not exercise its budgetary authority over
salaries to transfer funds in a manner that prevents an elected officer from performing the duties
of office. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0037 (2003) at 5. ·
More importantly, the commissioners court's authority to reduce the salary of a particular
employee may be limited by other law. The compensation of several officers and employees is
governed by other statutes specifically applicable to the officer or employee. See, e.g., TEX. Gov'T
CODE§§ 41.106 (staff of prosecuting attorney), 52.051 (district court reporter); TEX. Loe. Gov'T
CODE§ 152.013(a) (elected county officials). Thus, while a commissioners court may have general
authority to adopt standing orders to reduce compensation for a position that has been vacated and
filled by a new employee, whether the policy may be implemented with respect to a particular
· position depends on whether other law governs the compensation for the position. As this office
has previously noted, "[s]tatutes specifically applicable to a particular county officer may provide
the officer with more or less authority, relative to the commissioners court, and may lead to a
different result." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0037 (2003) at 1 (determining that the
commissioners court did not have the authority to reduce compensation of an elected county
official's employee under particular circumstances). ·
The second question concerns the compensation of court coordinators under section 74 .104
of the Government Code. Request Letter at 2. The statute provides:
(a) The judges shall determine reasonable compensation for the
court coordinators, subject to approval of the commissioners
court.
(b) Upon approval by the commissioners court of the position and
compensation, the commissioners court of the county shall
provide the necessary funding through the county's budget
process. County funds may be supplemented in whole or part
through public or private grants.
TEX. Gov'T CODE § 74.104. Under section 74.104, it takes two actions to establish a court
reporter's compensation: the judge must determine reasonable compensation and the
commissioners court must approve it. Id. The statute does not authorize a commissioners court
to unilaterally set the court coordinator's salary without the judge's determination of reasonable
compensation. As this office observed about a similar statute, section 74.104 appears designed to
require the judge and the commissioners court to establish a court coordinator's compensation by
collaboration, giving neither final authority to set the salary. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-
0952 (2012) at 2 (construing the statutory authority of the county judge and commissioners court
to establish the salary of the Van Zandt County Court at Law court reporter). A standing order
that automatically reduces the court coordinator's salary upon the happening of a contingency
infringes on the judge's authority to determine reasonable compensation in contravention of
items"). A commissioners court may delegate ministerial or administrative tasks necessary to carry out its budgetary
responsibilities, provided that it does not delegate its discretionary decision-making authority. See Tex. Att'y Gen.
Op. No. GA-0839 (2011) at 2-3.
The Honorable Marco A. Montemayor - Page 4 (KP-0052)
subsection 74.104(a). Accordingly, section 74.104 of the Government Code does not permit a
commissioners court to reduce a court coordinator's salary by automatic operation of standing
county policy without a determination of reasonable compensation by the judge who selected the
court coordinator.
The Honorable Marco A. Montemayor - Page 5 (KP-0052)
SUMMARY
Chapter 111 of the Local Government Code does not
prohibit as a matter of law the adoption of an order that
automatically transfers funds to reduce compensation for a position
when the position has been vacated and filled by a new employee.
Whether a commissioners court may implement such an order with
respect to a specific position depends on the particular
circumstances, including any law that specifically governs
compensation for the position.
Section 74.104 of the Government Code does not permit a
commissioners court to reduce · a court coordinator's salary by
automatic operation of standing commissioners court orders without
a determination of reasonable compensation by the judge who
selected the court coordinator.
Very truly yours,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
CHARLES E. ROY
First Assistant Attorney General
BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee
WILLIAM A. HILL
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee