Tommy Grant v. Commissioners Court of Navarro County, Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 11-10-00309-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 12, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tommy Grant, the constable of Precinct 4 in Navarro County, Texas, sought a writ of mandamus from the district court to compel the Commissioners Court of Navarro County to establish a reasonable salary for his office. His original petition was filed on January 22, 2010, with an amended petition submitted on August 13, 2010, addressing salary concerns for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The commissioners court had previously set the salary for these fiscal years, with the budget periods running from October 1 to September 30 of the subsequent year. Grant expressed dissatisfaction with the salary determined for fiscal year 2009-2010 and requested a hearing, which did not occur.

The district court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the commissioners court on August 27, 2010, ruling in favor of the court without providing reasons, leading to Grant's appeal. The primary issue on appeal was whether the district court had the jurisdiction and power to mandate the commissioners court to set a reasonable salary for the constable's office. The appellate court recognized the general authority of the district court in such matters, citing the Texas Constitution and relevant local government codes that require the commissioners court to set reasonable salaries for constables. It was emphasized that this duty is both mandatory and ministerial, entrusted to the discretion of the commissioners court.

The Texas Constitution grants district courts appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over County Commissioners Courts, subject to legal exceptions (Tex. Const. art. V, § 8), a provision which is reiterated in the enabling legislation (Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.020). The Commissioners Court recognizes the district court's mandamus power over it, specifically regarding the establishment of constable salaries, but argues that limitations exist, particularly under Section 152.0165(a) of the Local Government Code. This section stipulates that elected officers cannot sue over salary or personal expenses unless a hearing is requested and held under Section 152.016, which outlines the grievance hearing procedures.

The Commissioners Court contends that no such hearing was conducted for the relevant fiscal years, claiming this lack deprives the district court of jurisdiction. Addressing the jurisdictional claim, it is noted that both a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment can challenge subject-matter jurisdiction. A plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the court's jurisdiction; a defendant can succeed on a plea if there's an evident jurisdictional defect in the pleadings.

In this case, the pleadings reveal that no salary grievance committee hearing was requested or conducted for the fiscal year 2008-2009. For fiscal year 2009-2010, while Grant requested a salary increase during a budget hearing, the Commissioners Court postponed the request. Grant later sought a hearing from the Navarro County salary grievance committee, but was informed by county officials that the committee had not been fully established due to unselected public members.

A salary grievance committee consists of nine voting members, with the county judge serving as a nonvoting chairman. Certain elected officials are designated as voting members, and the statute allows for the appointment of additional public members to meet the nine-member requirement. In Navarro County, no public members were appointed for the fiscal years in question. The commissioners court asserts that the statutory requirements necessitate both a request for a hearing and the holding of that hearing, which are essential for the district court to have jurisdiction over salary claims. Section 152.0165(a) prohibits elected officials from suing regarding salary or expenses unless these prerequisites are fulfilled. This contrasts with other statutes, such as the Whistleblower Act, which only require initiation of grievance procedures. Jurisdictional prerequisites are critical, as they determine a court's authority to resolve a case and cannot be waived. The absence of a hearing on Grant’s salary claims meant the district court lacked jurisdiction, justifying the court's decision to grant the commissioners court’s plea to the jurisdiction. Grant's appeal on this matter was overruled, and his request for attorney’s fees was denied because he did not raise or brief that issue. The trial court's judgment was affirmed. Additionally, it was noted that Grant did not seek the district court's supervisory power to compel the commissioners court to fulfill its duty to organize the salary grievance committee for a hearing.