Comal County realigns County Court at Law No. 3 salary after dispute over payroll and retroactive deduction
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners voted to realign the 2025 salary for County Court at Law No. 3 from $177,623 to $171,000. Judge Wigginton objected in court, saying payroll deductions had already begun and asserting legal protections against retroactive pay reductions.
The Comal County Commissioners Court on Sept. 4 voted to realign the 2025 salary for County Court at Law No. 3 from $177,623 to $171,000, citing the Office of Court Administration salary formulas. The action followed an extended discussion and a public objection by the judge affected.
Judge Wigginton, the County Court at Law No. 3 judge, told the court she had accepted the previously budgeted amount for 2025 and said payroll had already been processed to reflect that figure. She said the pay notice and the adopted budget amounted to a wage agreement and that a retroactive recoupment was not lawful without proper notice. "That is my pay," she told the commissioners, adding that "reductions in pay can be legal, but they should never be retroactive," citing Texas Workforce Commission guidance and Attorney General opinions she provided to the court.
County staff and several commissioners described the matter as a payroll calculation and statutory-formula issue. Commissioners said earlier action had been intended to move a juvenile-board supplement into the full statutory supplement for judges; the county said a line-item/administrative error left the juvenile supplement attached only to certain judges, producing an inconsistency. Commissioner Crownover acknowledged the mistake and said the county needed to treat employees consistently when overpayments occur.
After discussion the court approved the realignment and directed the auditor/payroll office to make the adjustment. Commissioners and the judge discussed legal guidance and the county’s payroll policies; the judge provided documentation including a signed salary-notice form, current pay stubs and citations to state guidance and Attorney General opinions. The court directed the auditor to execute the payroll adjustments and to pursue any recoupment consistent with law and personnel policy.
Ending: The motion to realign the 2025 salary passed by majority vote. The court directed the auditor/payroll office to implement the change and address the payroll reconciliation; the judge objected publicly and requested that any recoupment be handled in accordance with state law and county policy.
