Case Information

*1 Corald C. Mann

* A-u.NxY OmNrnPA..

Ronorablo A. lV. Lows=y

Coun+q Attorney

Naoogdoohes, Texas

Dear Sir: Opfaioa Ho. C-624,

R.8 Ecmis the salary of the oounty audltor,~appblntod andor.Artlolo 1646, R. C. 6.. fi&o6 or dotormlnodt Your roquostfor'an oplnioa oa.the abovs rtitod +&lon, tog&b&r with othor questions incidental thoroto, has beoa rooolmd by this offlw.

It appoars that Haoogdoohos County does not havh oithsr th+po- sdribed'populatlon 07 asssssod tax valuationi required by Article 1646, R. C.8. to autborlca tha ppolatzent of a oouufJr~auditorundor thatArtlo10, but a ‘oqfp suditor has boon appcdated for the oounCy under $he~provlslons d hrtloloo 1646 and 1647. The distrlot judge who-app&ntod the auditor fixed hio~salary at r,mlnimum of one hundred %wenty-f1~~'(#%26;CC) dbllari permanth; fully ocmpllod with all the ~ovlsionr of Ai% 1647;and th& +triot olerk'porformo&hir dufy'as pesaribod by iaid-Art%alo. Xau~or, tha 'Conmissloaors' Court refused toreoord in Iti mlnutii tho~6eitifiod Oopy of thti ndnuton roooited from tho distriot clerk;.land refused toeator an ardor dlrootiag'tho paymat of tho auditor'6 'ralrty,'is oonnaandod to do by tho same Artiolo, but to t&e ooatrarg onterod ~~ordsr iastruoting~th~ oomty alark to lsfuo no Wt to tho'audltor ln paymoittbf hlr monthly salary. 'In piow of thle eituatlon, you nant to know whether the audltoi-Is salary ir fixed bythe dlrtrlot judge or by the Wmnlssionerr' Court. O&or quotione subnltto6 will bo subsequently coneidorod and answered herolna

The question &.a%¶ has been hsretoforo oonPIPld&ed by'thia drp&rt-' mont npoa at least four obo8slolls. Cn'July 24,'1921; Ron. 0015; C.'.Stiptikljs, tibor oftho House of Roprosontativos, nas adivsed thatOtheG.lary of Ouab a oouuty auditor was determined by the.provlsiona of et. 1646. On August 17, 1956, Mr. R.C. Tompkins, County Auditor of Kaoogdoohbs,Caunty, -1 advlsod that the Commissionera' Court of said aounty was the proper author-. lw to fix his salary, ti thrt the amount was for tho Court's dotermine Thon, on D&amber 21, 1926, Hon. Roy R. Priest, DTstriot Attorney, tion. Rankla, W&P advlsod to tho oamo effect. The last oxpnrsion bytho dopart- meat on the subjootwhioh we have been able to find 1s contained in a lattw dated December 22, 1938, addressed to Hon. Lox. B.Smith, District Judge, Groesbaok, wherein ho IP advisod that the salary of tho Ccwnw Auditor of Freestone County should bo fixed by tho Cona&ssion*rs' Court of said oounty, Tho bsis for that anolusion was&at the %xmuiosloners' Court lo an agent *2 Hon. A. I% Lowery, page 2 (C-1326)

of the county and controls the levies affooting rovaauas of a o~unty.~ Tho opinions rendered to Mr. Tompkins &d Hr. Priest state no reasons for the conclusions thorola reaohed. All of the above msntionod opinions. were written by Assistant Attorwys General, wore not oonforonoe opinions, cad were not approvod by an Attornv Goaoral. The firat opinionwas writ- tan during the administration of Hon. Jas. V. Allrod, tho others during the time that Hon. W. HcCraw was Attorauy General. L%IO of th.so opinions holds that the salary & the am&y Auditor of your oounw nmst be fixed Iy the Commlsslonsro~ Court of said oow at au& an Mount 46 it might determine, while the opinion first 4bova roforrod to speolfioally holds that tho sal- ary of an auditor appointed under tbo authority of Article 1646 mst %a governed and dotermined by'the measuring mothod 8of up in Art1010 1645. Both opiaionr oannot be oorreot.

Let us examine those staktbs along lrfffi Art. 1647,&d 8.0 if wo o8nnotarrivo at a acrreot an8wor to tho questlon lnvolmd.

The pertimnt prts of Artloles 1645 and 1646 road, roepeotively, as follows:

*In m count;v having a population of thirty-flea thousand inhabitants, oc over, aooordingto tha prooodingFodoralomsus, or havlngatuvalQati&n of flftooa mlllloa~dollus or over, l o,oordlng to thr last approad tax rolls, tharo shall be Mennlally.appolnted an audltor'of aooounts &id finaxioos, the title of said offleer to b oounty auditor, Who &all hold his offiae for trro yoam, and who shall reoeiw as amponration for-hi8 smvSoer 6nS huu6redd'and twenty-flvo dollars for eaoh million dollars, or major portion tharoof, of thoaosossod v8lurtion, %o armual 8414ry to k ooniprfid f&an tb last approved t@x rolls, sald~annual Palw'fra oount$ tide‘shall not oxooed thlrwslx hundred dollars, to be paid monthly out of'thti &tiqral fundn of tha oounti upon an order of&a oommia8lmers~ court. . . .t "Woatho cc%maisnionors' oourt of a oounty, not mentioned ad daumoritti iip thr preooding art.3010 shall detirmino that an iudltar Is k publlO~~ooidSlfy lntha diaptoh of the oounti tisinaos and shrll into*'ah drdor.:ti@ti ~ti ndnutes'of said oourt fully setting out thereasoak hid~aeaesaity of’rPr‘ auditor; .rad shall~oauso iaid'S+drr to ~'ooirtffl'id to thi drstii&tSjizdgo# hating juriodiotloa Ln the boimw; 'rid judgbS‘Sh&ll, Wsuoh~r'Mkori%K ooasldend good aad sinffiolont, appoint i cknty aidltdr, ie prtidti lai the suocoeding artiol~, who shall quall~~and perf&ti~all~tho'dutibr .' ioqulred of county auditors by the laws of fhir 2tat-e; provided mid judw shall havu the power to dlscoatlano the offloe of suoh county auditor at any W after tho expiration of cuxo yoar wlmn it is oloarly shown that suoh auditor ir not a publio neoessity and his services aro not oommonaurato nith hls salaryrooolvod. . . "

Article 1647 reads as follows: Yho distriot judgoa hati% jurisdiotioa In the oounty shall appoint the oounty udltor at a speolrlmooting hold for that purpose, a majority ruling: *3 Hon. A. W. Lowory, page 3 (O-826)

provided, that if a majority of such judgos shall fail to agree upon i&e solootion of some psrson as 4udltor, then either of said judgos shall oar- tidy suah fast totho Goarnor, who shall thereupon 4ppolnt soma other district judge to sot and vota with tho aforesaid ju+os in tho sole&ion of suoh auditor. The a&ion shall thea be rooorded in the minutes of the district oourt of the oounty 4nd tie 0101% thereof shall ootify the eeme to the colmnis6lonero'oourt, which shall oauee tho sane to be recorded in its miautes togothor with an order directing the paymoat of the auditor's salary. . . ."

Tha offioe of the ooun@ auditor was created in 1905 by Chrp; 161, Reg. See. 29th Legisl4turac 800. 1 of that Aat, as mendad in 1907, wns oarriod into tho Rovisod Statutes of1911ar Art.l46O,whichArtiolow&s wndod la 1915. The original Act and all amendmontr up to and LnoludSng gho ~an&neat of 1916 were based oa olther the population of the wunty or acane olty located therain.' Tho salary of the auditor In tho orlgltil Aot, & all am&ndm~to thereto; was fixed 4t #2400&Q, no more, no 108a. In 1917, Chap. 184, Reg. SOS., l&o 35th Legislature POr thi first time pro- vided fortho appalnbnont of 4 counw auditor based on~population or tax. valuations. Tho valuation was fixed at fifteen mllllon dollars,'or over, tho oame as am provided for in Art. 1645. Ia the smno Act; Art. 1460a, now&t. 1646,~was oreatod and ArCl460, after Ming omqnded In 1925 to inomaso tho suxbm salary, la now, exoludlng later "braokot" amendmenta, It mry hero be lioted that the dot of 1917 limited tha aalarJt '

t. 1646. 2 o a county auditor to #100X@ for 4421 mlllfon, o? major portion thereof, of fax valurtion, not to ~oeod #2400&O per 4mmh

Art. 146Oa (Art. 1646) did not oreah the office of county auditor l& only pmded that those oount&oa who were not llgible to have 8 ooun* auditor beoauso of lack of the nea*ssary popilatlon, or the requlrad taxable valuation, might have the benefit of tha sarvioos of a aauntg auditor if 453 whwa the Conaaiasionere~ Court ~etfermined a publio neawri* existed for s-, and provided tho'proo&xre f& the'appolntm&t of an auditor by the P- appointingagona$ (o1d.k-t. 1461, now&t. 1467) empow- wed to appoint an auditor under Art. 1460.

Art, 146Oa was no'&+ moro nor loss than an exoqtion to th* gen- oral qualificatlonr prescribe for counties to be eligible to have 4 ocean- ty auditor by Art. 1460. Thin exooptloa could have with propri*CJr been added to said Article as a proviso, for In truth and In faot, that is what it is, and nothing moroe Sec. 1 of the Act of 1917 amends Art. 1460: 600. 2 adds Art. 1460a, and Sec. 3 amends Art. 1461 by providing the additional proooduro, perhaps made neobssary by Art. 1460s.

If Sec. 2 adding Art. 146Oa, had been written a.0 4 pruvbo to 600. 1 of the Act of 1917, amending Art. 1460, the question now under considor- ation would never have arisen because it would have bean apparent that the salary of a county auditor appointed in a aounty ambraaed withintb proviso would be measured by the same yardstick that salaries of county auditors *4 Hon. A.& hwory, page 4 (C-626)

nho am within the g*naral prwi~10n~ of Art. 1460, of which It would haw boon a part, were measured, which was "one hundrod dollars for saoh mlllloa dollars, or major portion theroof, of the assossod valuation." It is apparent thatmovured by thin yardstiok, ao county auditor's salary would ever amount to the smxbum salary of $2400.00, to which thor* auditors of countios having more the.n $lS,OCO,OCXMO taxablr valuation wore limited.

It is tho wrifer's opinionthat the Etatut. 4x-4 so plaia and'unam- biguous that there is a0 oaoasion to resort to rulos of aonstruation, tit If nrah rosart muot be had, thea w* must rmaombsr that a otatut* must be oon*truod to make It eff*otiw, that is, enforooalilo and operatiw, If It Is fairly susooptiblo of such lnterpretation~ eaoh prt must b ocmslderod In ocanoctionwith every other part, in order to produco a harmonious whol* u&to roaoh lh* true l*g%slativa Intoi&, the real parposo of oomstruotion. A statute must be given a aonstruofioa thatavoids misohitius conioquono- *si or m&a f;t imposslblo-of l nforoawnt, or to dofoat or'aullify, or that~ will render0 it fruitlars, futile, purposelo** or uaol**s. Itnustba pr& *umod that th* ~glslatwU did not intend to do ~a fooliSh or usolohs thing.

Nhat.dll bo the oonsoquono*s should w* attempt to oon*tru* the rtatute as authorlsing Colmetsoionorr 1 Courts to fix tho~saluy of ooun~ auditors appointed undor Art.'16461 ~Sathe first plaoo, wo uy oonfronf*d rrith the established polloy of the 8tata fired w ropeato6 leglslatdw l ots fixing th* *alarios of oouu~,audltors gonorally. The bgi*lrturti tidontly thought,itwould be unwis* to‘permlt a pmaissloners~ Court ti firtho'atil- arj? of ax'offloer irlroso duty It was to chock their official aotP and to koop them in duo bounds. The duti*s imposodbg 6tatutauponooun~ uditorii patently affsota a ccmPni*slon*r*~ omrt in many ways,'ln thr xaralso of It* authority 0-r counti affUra. The Legixlatur* wU fiilly.Garo of th*'*v$l~ to be ranodlod &*a. It oroatod th* offioo of oounty auditor. That body knew that a bounty auditor should not b influ*ao*d by ouch oourto~or'tho mombors thereof, wh*n It provided for ME appointment by dlstriot judges, +nd mad* MS salary oortuin, or fixed a yardstick whorebylt oould be made oertain without the int*rvontion of tho court* The bgislaturo aid not Mt to put a oounty auditor la a position wh*ro h* could b intimidated or influenoed lythe oourt, by peaittlng the oourt to rair* or lowor his salary at will, or dlrohargo him.

Ik ar* n*xt aonfroatod with thin fundamental proposition of law, to- wit: _ _,. ,.. ~. ,~ ?m tie absence of *xpre*s Constltutlonal pr~sion, the camp*naation of offio*ra must b+ fixed by the bgislature or by sane governing body whiah han ken expressly authorized to do so." Wharton Co. v. Ahldag, 84 Tax. 12, 19 S.Vf. 291; State V. &ore, 57 Tax. 307; First Baptist Churah v. City of PoCt Worth (Corn. App.) 26 8.X (2d) 198; 34 Texx. Jur. 506, 607.

_ . r

Hon. A. 5% Lomry, page 5 (O-626)

Ths affias of the county auditor is a creature of the Logirlature, hence there is no constitutional prw~sion f3xing the salaries of such offioers.' Tharofore,wo must look to the statuta to SOS how suoh salarfes are fixed, and if not flxed ly statute, we must th&n look for rtatute 8xpnrsly authorizing sme governing bdy to do 80. Ii thorn bno such statuk, it neoesnuily follanrs that no salary oan km paid to 8uch county See authorities cited above. .Inthat bvonti, w e noald oomict offioers. the tigislaturo of having done a futile, useleas, ineffective, unenforoe- able an4 fruitless thing -- enacted an impotent statuto.

We haw been unable to find any ttatute enpOwering a oolnnclssioners~ court, a district Judge, or any governing body to fixthe salary of a aouuty ,rtiitor, whether he %S appointed under Art.'1646 or Art. 1646. Thorn are no su&'rt&utos for the very Simple reama tit tharo i8 no neaersity for 88x10. The bgislature has fixed the Salary of oounw auditor8 bytho plain provi8ionS (d Jrrt. 164s. In that Ai%cle i8 found a'yardstiak by whioh every county auditor'8 nalazy may be dafinitsly delmmined, aoopt tho8o tioioim 8Cb.KtO8 Ue fiXad bg~INlWZ'OUS braOk& 8ZIOn&llSnt8 thSret0, and by OthSr track- it statutes withwhioh we are not here conaernod, %8oau8s tliay do not apply to I!hoogdoohes County.

In this cozmootion, w8 call your attSntion'totho fact that in saoh and awry bracket amndmbatadded to tiiO18 1646, an4 in ArtioloS 164% to Artiolo 1645g, inolusiw, Vernon's Annotato4 Statutes, a oalarg is spmifia- ally fixed for th0 oOUU~J~ aUditOr Of the OOUnig or OOunfiO8 ttiwhioh8tid truoket 8nm&t1emta apply.

YOU haV0 adti8.4 US that th. aSSS86.4 PrlUatiOn Of bobgdOdm8 COunty, as 8hm by tbo last approved aS808SWnt roll8 Of pai4 county, i8 pproxi- mat.4 twelve million dollars. It is a simple mattar of oompuation to detir- m&n8 that the oounty auditar's 8alary is PiPteen hundred dollars per amum.

The other quSstion8 8ubnlttod am 4opSn4ont upontho anm8r to your main qU88tiCQ3, which 1, haYS just m8wemod, tim C‘=&.8SiOX,Sr8' C0Ul-t should ocmp4 wlith the plain mandatOXy prOviSiOn Of &% 1647,,reOOI'd 50 it8 Inin- utes the oertifiod copy of the minutes of the dintriot court appointing fhS auditor, an4 sntsr a~or4er 4irSoting the payment of the auditor's salary rah month aS it aoorueS*

The law prasumee all publio offloam will pmfona their offioial du- Therefore, wa nwt proman that the Ccmmisaioners~ Court of your ties. oountJr will perform its duty in this in8tanoe. In faot, that bo4y ha8 no disoretion or other alternativS than to follow ae plain mandatory provi- sions of tit5018 1647. For thiS mason, wo 40 not adPi whather the county olark should prow84 to i8suS to th8 county auditor his salary oheck each month as his salary amruSs until the ComissionsrS1 Court pSr- form8 it8 perfunotorg duty of recording in its minute8 the oortifiad copy of the ndzwta8 of thS distr ot court and entar an order dirmting tb *6 Hon. A. V. Lowmy, pago 6 (C-826)

payment oftha countu auditor's salary, bscau86 w6 feel that this will bs done 8s soon as th8 oourt h8s bean offioially advised what its duty 18 in th8 prmiseo.

The foregoing r-marks ambased upon the prssumption that the person appointed to tie office of county auditor ha6 takarr b&h the constitutional and the special oath of off108 required of him by Art. 1649, 6x14 has filed with the Comniosicnsrs* Court th8 bond provid6d for in said Article. m this oonnection,wse ar6 further advised that the auditozyreoemtly appointed su008848 himsslf in offio8. If he has not t6kon the oaths,~8xooukd 8nd filed the bond, ho may yet do so, for u&d8r Sm. 17, Art. 16 of our Consti- tution, he is mquirod to perform th8 duti88 of hi8 offioe until ha quali- fi88. Purthannore, the provision found in Art. 1648, requiringth8 bond to b8 filed within trSnty 46~8 lftor hi8 ppointmnt ha8 be611 oonotnmd a6 dir&- tory in simil6r St6tWt86. McFarlum ot al ta. Eow811, County Judge, (WV. App.) 43 S.W. 315, error rofU6o4. In 8ithsr svent, the auditor is mititled to hi8 comp6nsation 80 longao he 88rv86 the oounty in that 06pacity.

The opinion8 her8tofore writton by assistmts 6nd hmiiaabom r8f8r re4 to, whsmin viano oontrary to this opLnion ar8 8xpns66d, ar8 her6w speoifio8lly W.rrulrd.

Trwting that the foregoing snawu8 your Inquiq, w.8 are V.lytrulyyour6 ATTORM3Y GERERAL OF TEiAS By /s/ Bruoo W. Exy8nt 1.

Bruoe 3?. Biy8nt As8istult mMrcegw Apprw8d AFPRWSD: /8/Garald C. tin opinion Conmitt byGRL ATTowlBp GENERAL OF TEXAS

Chairman