Salary grievance panel recommends county reconsider DA supplement after commissioners cut county portion

A nine-member salary grievance committee voted 8–1 on Aug. 8 to recommend that the Williamson County Commissioners Court reconsider a reduction in the county supplement for District Attorney Sean Dix after Dix and several prosecutors said the commissioners cut the county portion without adequate notice and that the change alters how his total compensation is paid and how retirement and benefits are calculated.

The committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to the full commissioners court, which has final authority over county salary supplements and the budget. County staff and at least one commissioner said the action preserved Dix’s overall, total pay while shifting a portion of the cost to state-provided salary increases enacted by recent legislation.

Why it matters: District attorneys are state officials whose base pay is set by state law, but counties may add a county-funded supplement. That structure gives counties discretion to increase total pay above the state baseline. Dix told the panel the county’s action reduced the county-funded supplement by about $27,000; county staff said the net effect was to increase Dix’s total salary (state plus county) and to rely more on state funding.

What each side told the committee

District Attorney Sean Dix opened his presentation by describing the DA’s office as a hybrid role: “I am a state employee, but I’m also a county employee,” he said, and noted he supervises an office with more than 60 employees and a multi-million-dollar budget. Dix argued that the county’s decision to change the supplement was made without prior discussion and that county employees and prosecutors would be harmed if the county treated the DA’s compensation differently from other elected officials.

Prosecutors and staff attended and made public comments. Bridget Chapman, a prosecutor in the office, asked the committee to use the market median in the salary study to set the supplement and noted the supplement is “paid in addition to his base salary from the state.” Jamie Felicia, a board-certified criminal lawyer in the DA’s office, said unanimous support from the panel was needed to change the commissioners’ action and observed that a prior favorable committee recommendation in 2023 was not adopted by the commissioners. Mike Waldman, chief of the trial division, called Dix’s leadership “professionalism, experience and integrity” and urged the committee to restore the supplement.

County presentation and legal/technical points

Rebecca Clemons, the county manager, explained that recent legislation changed the state baseline for district judges and district attorneys and described a “clawback” interaction: if a county pays a supplement above specified thresholds, the state-adjusted baseline can be reduced by the state, changing the county/state split without materially increasing total pay. Clemons said that, under the adopted budget structure, Dix’s total salary will rise to about $235,000 on Oct. 1 and that reducing the county-funded portion by $27,000 would shift more of the cost burden to the state rather than reduce Dix’s total compensation.

Commissioner Cynthia Long said county law gives the commissioners court primary authority to set county budgets and supplements and urged the panel to consider the total pay package rather than only the county supplement number.

Panel action and next steps

The grievance committee voted 8–1 in favor of recommending that the commissioners court reconsider the county-funded supplement decision and review the district attorney’s total compensation in light of the county’s salary practices. Committee members asked for the panel’s recommendation to be forwarded to the commissioners court at its next meeting. County staff said the county had already used the state’s new pay tables to preserve Dix’s overall salary while reducing the county-funded portion in order to save local taxpayers approximately $27,000 in county-funded compensation (the state will pay more of the total). Dix and his supporters urged the committee to press the commissioners to restore or otherwise recognize market parity for the DA position.

Context and unresolved issues

The case turns on the interaction between state-set salaries for district attorneys and county supplements. County staff said the change preserved Dix’s total pay and shifted cost to state funding; Dix argued the change affects retirement contributions, benefit calculations and the county’s long-term valuation of the office. The committee’s recommendation is advisory; the commissioners court will decide whether to alter the budget or uphold its action.