Commissioners Court approves publication of proposed elected-official pay and allowances, declines county supplement increase

The Commissioners Court voted unanimously Thursday to publish proposed salaries, expenses and allowances for elected county and precinct officers and to withhold a county-funded supplement increase that would have raised the county contribution from $18,000 to $25,000.

The vote, made during the courtsession on agenda item No. 9, authorizes publication of the proposed increases and amended allowances in the county paper as required by statute. The motion was made by Commissioner Weddell and seconded by Commissioner Matthews; the presiding County Judge announced, "Motion carries."

Why it matters: The discussion reflected a split between accepting state-directed pay increases for judges and other elected officials and concern about internal equity for county employees and the appearance of giving select raises when general employees may not receive increases. The court also clarified which increases must be publicly noticed under state law and debated whether travel and related allowances should be listed as part of an elected officials allowances.

Most important facts

County staff presented state-directed supplement increases that, as described in the meeting, included an increase to the county judge's state supplement (described in the meeting as $9,450), a $21,000 increase for the county attorney, and a county court of law supplement baseline increase described as between $44,100 and $51,100; the presenter said those changes produce total compensation figures described in the meeting as roughly $237,500 to $244,500 for that bench level. The court debated whether the county should contribute an additional $7,000 toward the county court supplement (raising the county portion from $18,000 to $25,000) and decided not to adopt that county-funded increase now.

During debate, Judge Lee described the supplement as a retention tool, saying, "I think of that more as a retention and a supplement, keeping the good folks who got the job and keep them from being tempted elsewhere." Lee argued that competitive pay helps keep sitting judges and court staff from leaving for higher-paying private practice or other employment. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic but raised concerns about fairness to county staff and the difficulty of approving select raises while most county employees were not receiving increases in the proposed budget.

The court also examined travel and training allowances for specific offices. Proposed or discussed adjustments included matching the district clerk's travel allowance to the county clerk's ($5,000 as presented), increasing justices of the peace travel budgets from $1,000 to $2,000 each after year-to-date expenses exceeded prior allotments, and leaving several other travel and training allowances at prior levels. County staff noted high hotel rates had increased travel spending in some departments.

Legal and procedural guidance provided during the meeting emphasized that state law requires the Commissioners Court to publish notice in a county newspaper at least 10 days before the public hearing on any proposed increases in salaries, expenses or allowances. The staff member who reviewed the statute told the court that the newspaper notice must list proposed increases and their amounts and that a separate written notice of the salary and personal expenses included in the budget must be sent to each elected county or precinct officer; that separate notice triggers grievance procedures available to those officers if appropriate.

What the court directed and decided

- Direction/assignment: Staff was directed to post the required newspaper notice of the proposed increases and amended allowances and to prepare the budget workshop that followed the meeting.

- Formal action: The court approved a motion to publish the proposed salaries and allowances as presented and amended, and explicitly declined to increase the county supplement contribution from $18,000 to $25,000 at this time. Motion by Commissioner Weddell; second by Commissioner Matthews; outcome: approved.

Discussion context and next steps

Several speakers said the county could revisit supplement levels in future budget cycles if circumstances change. The court resolved a number of line-item travel and allowance adjustments for elected offices and agreed to incorporate the published figures into its budget process, subject to any statutory notice and grievance timelines. The court then adjourned regular business and moved into a budget workshop.

Ending note

No final budget adoption occurred at this meeting; the action taken was to publish proposed increases and allowances and to proceed with the budget workshop. Any final salary or allowance changes remain subject to the formal budget adoption process and the notice/grievance requirements described during the meeting.