Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Wigginton objects after court moves to realign county court salary; pay garnishment contested
Summary
County Court at Law No. 3 Judge told commissioners Sept. 4 that the county has begun to garnish pay after the auditor asserted a salary calculation error; Judge Wigginton said the county had previously issued a notice and pay stubs showing the higher amount and cited Texas workforce guidance and attorney-general opinions while the court voted to correct the pay line.
Judge Wigginton appeared before the court Sept. 4 to contest a planned salary realignment that county staff said was needed to align the judge's pay with the Office of Court Administration formula.
Wigginton told the court she had received a written salary notice and had been paid under that notice during 2025, and she said the auditor had already begun garnishing her pay. She presented pay stubs, notices and legal citations (including Texas Workforce Commission guidance and Government Code citations) and asked the court not to retroactively claw back pay that she said had been contractually established. "There is a pay agreement between myself and the County," she said, and added that unilateral garnishment was not lawful under the cited guidance.
Commissioners said the court had identified a mistake in how a juvenile-board supplement had been handled and that the intent was to standardize supplements across judges; some commissioners apologized for the error but argued the county had an obligation to correct overpayments and to treat employees consistently. One commissioner said the mistake required recovery to preserve parity across judges; another emphasized the need to strengthen internal controls so errors do not recur.
After debate, the court approved the line that formally realigned County Court at Law No. 3 pay in accordance with the Office of Court Administration guidance; commissioners also discussed process improvements and accountability for payroll errors. The action followed motion and second by the commissioners on the floor. Wigginton had asked the court to respect the notices and pay already delivered; the public record shows conflicting interpretations of whether the retroactive adjustment and ongoing garnishment comport with state workforce guidance.
The exchange included references to statutory language and an attorney-general opinion describing limits on midyear changes to elected officials' salary and the conditions under which deductions or repayment can be pursued. Commissioners said they would review the payroll process to reduce the chance of similar mistakes.
