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 to establish a reasonable salary for his office. The district court denied his request, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. Grant, who took office on January 1, 2009, was dissatisfied with the salary set for the fiscal year 2009-2010 and filed a grievance request on September 14, 2009, which was not addressed. He subsequently filed an original petition for writ of mandamus on January 22, 2010, and an amended petition on August 13, 2010, seeking a reasonable salary for the fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

The Commissioners Court responded with a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted on August 27, 2010, without specifying reasons. Grant's appeal focused on whether the district court had the authority to mandate the Commissioners Court to set a reasonable salary. While it is generally accepted that the district court holds this power, the Commissioners Court contended that such authority has limitations. The Texas Constitution grants Commissioners Courts the discretion to determine compensation for precinct officers, mandating that constables must be paid on a salary basis. The court emphasized that while the Commissioners Court has the discretion to set salaries, it must establish reasonable ones, a duty deemed both mandatory and ministerial. The Texas Constitution also provides that the district court has general supervisory control over the Commissioners Court with certain legal exceptions.

The enabling legislation mirrors the constitutional provision, specifically citing TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 24.020 (West 2004) and the case Comm’rs Court of Titus Cnty. v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. 1997). The commissioners court acknowledges that district courts possess mandamus power over commissioners courts to determine reasonable constable salaries but contends there are limitations on the district court's authority based on Section 152.0165(a) of the Local Government Code. This section prohibits an elected county or precinct officer from suing over salary or personal expenses unless a hearing under Section 152.016 is requested and conducted. The commissioners court asserts that no such hearing occurred for the relevant fiscal years, claiming this absence deprives the district court of jurisdiction.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is critical and must be established by the claimant. Both a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment can challenge this jurisdiction. The commissioners court has utilized both avenues. A defendant can succeed on a plea to the jurisdiction if a jurisdictional defect is evident from the pleadings, making it impossible for the plaintiff's case to establish jurisdiction. Courts may consider evidence to resolve jurisdictional issues, ruling on the plea as a matter of law if the evidence is undisputed.

In this case, Grant’s pleadings reveal no salary grievance committee hearing was requested or held for the fiscal year 2008-2009. For the fiscal year 2009-2010, Grant was unaware of his office's budget until a hearing on September 14, 2009, where he requested a salary increase, which the commissioners court tabled. Afterward, Grant sought a hearing with the Navarro County salary grievance committee, but was informed by county officials that the committee had not been fully formed because the public members had yet to be selected. The committee is meant to include nine voting members, with the county judge serving as a nonvoting chairman.

The statute mandates the appointment of sufficient public members to achieve a total of nine voting members on the salary grievance committee, or alternatively, the commissioners court may opt to use nine public members exclusively. In Navarro County, no public members were appointed to the salary grievance committee during the reviewed fiscal years. The commissioners court asserts that the statute's requirements are explicit: a hearing request must be made, and the hearing must occur for the district court to have jurisdiction. This interpretation is supported by Section 152.0165(a), which prohibits an elected county or precinct officer from filing suit regarding salary or expenses without first requesting and attending a hearing as outlined in Section 152.016. Unlike other statutes, which may allow for suit initiation without a hearing, this statute requires both a hearing request and an actual hearing as jurisdictional prerequisites. The absence of such a hearing on Grant's salary claims deprives the district court of jurisdiction to address them, validating the court's decision to grant the commissioners court's plea to the jurisdiction. Grant's appeal on this issue is overruled. Additionally, the court denied Grant's request for attorney's fees, as he did not raise this issue adequately in his appeal, nor did he attempt to compel the commissioners court to fulfill its duty to establish a salary grievance committee. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.