Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Titus County residents challenge proposed raises as treasurer urges equal pay for elected offices
Summary
At a June 22 Commissioners Court meeting, residents and taxpayers urged the court to reject blanket pay increases for elected officials and demanded accountability on road spending, while Treasurer Dana Wallace Applewhite urged pay parity across offices and defended her conduct.
Dana Wallace Applewhite, the Titus County treasurer, used the court's public‑comment period on June 22 to defend herself and press for uniform pay for elected officials, saying she did not request a personal raise but wants county salaries equalized.
"I want equal pay. I want equal pay for everybody," Applewhite said, identifying herself as a Titus County resident and the elected treasurer. She told the court she had sought legal advice and that lawyers she consulted found nothing unethical or illegal about her husband — who serves as a commissioner and votes on budgets — participating in budget votes.
Applewhite said comparisons to other counties' pay scales show disparities and argued women serving in county offices are paid less. She urged the court to make pay equal across offices and said she was speaking up for women in the county.
Her comments prompted a series of public objections. Residents who spoke during the allotted public‑comment period opposed the proposed blanket raises and linked their opposition to concerns about county services and transparency. "Why are raises being discussed before results?" asked Janna Goforth, who said she took unpaid time off to attend and demanded a public accounting of prior road spending in Precinct 3.
Multiple speakers described poor road conditions and safety hazards in Precinct 3 and nearby roads. Larry Yarbrough said he had repeatedly asked his commissioner to remove a hazardous tree and that his family feared for their safety while driving local roads. Steven Bolster, another taxpayer, urged the court to reject increases that apply to current officeholders and urged that any change take effect only for future officeholders to avoid the appearance of self‑interest.
Several speakers also called for more transparency about how prior appropriations were spent and recommended better public reporting on road work and other projects. Bolster suggested any officials who would directly benefit should consider recusal, and he proposed that increased transparency and performance reporting accompany any future compensation proposals.
The public‑comment portion of the meeting concluded before the court took action on compensation; no salary changes were enacted during the June 22 meeting.
