Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF IHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ,
AUSTIN Honorable Ii. W. Pit&m
county liu4itor
Faptte County
La Orangs, Texae
Dear Sirs
Your request f-0 0ar0runy oonali4ere4 by t
rsqueet &$a tollow81
n5.mua zalary pay- hree ItzaP am )otalled; an4 Is deduoted #2,$&O&O, the EB- lvidsd by three. ,:To the result- kdded the @us of ~2,750,00, the total representing the minimum ealary payable to the County Attorney.
“The above'rmthod of ozlculatint: the mini- mm salary is nommthod heretofore used in this County, an4 it-0 to uz that in forwlating your Opinion O-4281, your Depart- meat did not realize that the these caloulation8 might zffm minimum aalzry figure.
I
Bonorable H. K. Pit&an, Page 2
%3retofore, b'ayette county ha8 wed the following method of arriving at the ~n~um salary, to-wit: Be8 earned and aolUoteU and f8e8 earned but not collsoted are totalled.
From this figure is deuuotsd the expenses of the offioe. From the resulting figure (re- aUnder) is deducted ;;2,750.00~ This figure is then divided by three and to the resulting' amount ita atided $2,750.00 and the, ex-offioio salary pal.4 in 19?~5. -
RThe difference in the two osthods of oalculations is this: in your mathad, the 1935 ex-offioio salary Is inoludad In the @al- oulation befoee deducting the $2,9BO.O0 and dIdriding by three. In OUP aethod, the ex- aifioio salary ir not inoluded u&IL after ttu $2,750.00 has been deducted and t&r, divieion by three is made.
*Par au axample of the diff'ereno~ that the method of oaloulatfon makes there is at- taohed hereto a oaloulation of the minimum salary payable to the County Wmk based (1) OQ your method and (2) on our method.
'Whtih method 1s oorreot7*
upon reconaideratlon we hnn reaohed the oonolunlon was lnoorrcrot and that your method of oompMat lp on outlwned in that the method of computation wed by UB in o in1011 NO* [04281] your letter I.0 correot. See the aaao oi Anderson cou3jay v. Hopkins, 187 S. 'i;r 1019, ublch hold8 t&tit Ilx oiiicrio oompen- satioa oannet be regarded a6 *exoesa fwuP lander Article 9891, V. A. C. 9. It ie NO. o-4221 is modirle4 a8 r03.mf4: opinion
our opinion undar the Paote stated ia opinion Ho. O-4221 that the Commissioners* Court of FaysttQ County ia legally mqUir- ed t.~ a& the salary of the County Attorney of layette County at $3,300.00 per annum.
Very truly yours m 4, 1942 ATTOFtf?EY OliNWsiT, OF TEZiAS /7 n