Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF ‘I’HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorable Ralph Brook county Attorney Lubbook County Lubbook, Texan Dear Sir; Your request for op *can a Conetabl salary out of the ge where he doss. not re allowed by law ior h e receives no red by this department. etter that the preoinot psneated on the fee barie. book county, Texas, aooordiq 1,782 Inhabitants. 3& Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Stat- t aa r0ii0ws: otherwise prdrlded In thlm Aat, that may be retained by preoinot, strict offioer8 mentioned in this 11 be as r0110wst “3. In oounti63s 0ontalnin.g ae many aa thirty- mven thousand ttve hundred and one (37,601) alld not more than sixty thousand (60,GGO) inhslbitante, IIonorable Ralph Brook, Page 2 1 or containing a city of over twenty-five thou- sand ( 25,000 ) lnhabi tant s : County Judge, Dls- triot or Criminal District Attorney, Sherlrr, County Clerk, County Attorney, District Clerk, Tax Collector, .Tax Assessor, or the Assessor and Collector of Taxes, lhirty-five Hundred ($3500.00) Dollar8 each; Justice of the Peace and Constable, “eighteen Hundred ($1800.00) Dollars eaoh. ” . . . (1 Article 3891, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Stat- utes, provides In part as followst T&oh offioer named In th.le Chapter shall rlrst Gut of the current roes or his offioe pay or be paid the amount allowed him under the provisions of Article 3883, together with the salaries of hle assistants and deputies, and authorized expenses under Artiole 3899, and the amount neoeseary to cover ooets of premium on whatever surety bond olay be required by law. If the current fees of such offioe colleated In any year be more than the amount needed to pay the amounts above specified, same shall be deemed exaeas fees, end shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided. n. . . il ,- ‘. “In counties containing as many as thirty- seven thousand, five hundred and one (37,501) -, and not more than sixty thotlsand (60,000), or .. containing a city of wer twenty-five thousand (25,000) inhabitants, distriat and co8nty offi- cers named herein shall retain one-third of such excess fees until such one-third, together with the amount specified in Article 3883, amounts to Forty-two He&red end Bifty Dollars W50). Precinct orricere shall retain one- third until such one-third,. together with the amount specified In Article 3883, amounts to Twenty-two Hundred Dollars (g2200). “. . .n Article 3895, Vernon.8 Annotated Texas Civil 8tat- 1’ utes, provides: Honorable Ralph Rroak, Page 3, "The Commissioners* Court is hereby de- barred from allowing compensation for ex-officio services to county offloials when the compen- sation end exoess fees which they are allowed to retain shall reach the maximum provided for in this chapter. In cases where the compensa- tion and excess fee6 wbioh the officers are allowed to retain shall not reach themaximum provided for in this chapter, the Cosvnissionere* Court shall allow compensation for 0x 0rri0i0 servioes when, in their judgment, euoh.com- pensation is neoessery, prwided, such com- pensation Sorex-offiaio services allowed shall not inorease the compaosation of the offloial beyond the maximum of compensation and excess fees allowed to be retained by him under thir ohapter. Provided, however, the ex orfioio herein authorized shall be allowed only after an opportunity for a publio hearing and only upon the arrlrmative vote 0s at least three members of the Commissioners* Court.* 'b Opinion ho. O-417 of this department holds that the Commissioners* Court may in their discretion allow an ex oftiolo salary to oonstebles who do not receive their mariaurn fees of office, provided that the provisions of ,Artiole 3895, V. A. C. S., are complied with. We enclose herewith a copy of said opinion for your information. The case of Anderson County v. Hopkins, 187 S. W. 1019, bald that the Comissionere * court was authorized to allow colpensetion for ex officio servioes, provided suoh f compensation, together with the total amount of fees retain- ed under the statutes did not amount to more than the maxi- mumand excess fees authorized,and the court further held that ex offioio fees or salary was not to be oonsidered as eexoess fees" of whloh the officer could retain only one- third. me *first maxi.muuFsalary of a Lubbock County constable (under Article 9883) Is $1800.00. His "second or full maximum" salary (under Article 3891) is $3200.00. It is our opinion that the Commissioners* Court of Lubbock county may in their discreti~on (if Article 3895, xionorable WIph Break, Page 4 supre, is complied with) allow en ax o?ffcio salary to the constable to be paid from the zenera fund of the county, provided that such salary plue the fees retained by such officer do not exceed the sum of $2200.00. For exemple, if the constable earned and collected the sum of $1800.00 in fees the Cmmuissioners * court could allow him an ex efricio salary of &OO.OO or 1088. Of course, the ccmmls- sioners* Court is not required to allo*r the constable any ex officio salaryif it sees fit not to do so. Vie also enclose herewith a copy of opfnion ho. O-2082 of this d,epartnent which contains a full discussion of a related matter. . Trusting that this satisfactorily answers your in- quiry, we are Berytrulyyours KJF:OO ENCumJFtE