Summey v. Tisdale, 54525
| Decision Date | 15 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 54525,54525 |
| Citation | 1982 OK 133,658 P.2d 464 |
| Parties | Pauline SUMMEY, Bernice Hodges, and Rayline Hammond, Atoka County Deputy County Clerks; Karen Snead and Debra Blackmon, Atoka County Deputy Court Clerks; Ann Copeland and Lori Hutson, Atoka County Deputy County Assessors; Leonard Harbour, Jake Mayhew and Carl Hutson, Atoka County Deputy Sheriffs; and Doris Barris and Phyllis Marshall, Atoka County Deputy County Treasurers, Appellees, v. Joe TISDALE, Munroe Cochran and Leo Evans, Board of County Commissioners, County of Atoka, State of Oklahoma; and Floyd Mason, Duke Ellis and A.R. Pool, County Excise Board, County of Atoka, State of Oklahoma, if in office, or if not in office, the duly appointed or elected successors thereof, Appellants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
In the District Court, Atoka County; Lavern Fishel, Judge.
In a proceeding by several deputies in various county offices to compel the county excise board to approve the salary rates proposed by the principal county officers in their annual estimate of needs for the next fiscal year, the trial court directed the county excise board to appropriate funds for the maximum salaries set out in the budget requests.
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Ronald J. Stubblefield, Dist. Atty., 19th Dist., J. Douglas Gabbard II, Asst. Dist. Atty., Atoka, for appellants.
John B. Axton, Conn, Mayhue, Mayhue & Axton, Ada, for appellees.
The dispositive issues in this appeal are: Were salary recommendations made by a member of the county excise board, during the budget planning stage, sufficient to constitute an "appropriation of funds" for that purpose? Did the county excise board have the discretion to reduce the salary rate proposed by principal county officers for their deputies? and Did the county excise board abuse its discretion by arbitrarily reducing the proposed salary increases for deputies in the county offices? We answer the first and third questions in the negative and the second in the affirmative.
This case involves a dispute between several deputies in the various offices of county government in Atoka County--county clerk, court clerk, county assessor, treasurer and sheriff--and the Excise Board and Board of County Commissioners over the reduction in the recommended salary increases for the fiscal year 1979-1980.
The principal officers filed with the County Commissioners [Commissioners] their annual budget report which included an estimate of their needs and income for the ensuing fiscal year as well as a report of the earnings and cost of maintenance of their respective offices for the previous year. The Commissioners prepared a budget from these estimates and submitted it to the Excise Board [Board] for approval. This report also included an estimate of probable income from sources other than ad valorem taxes. 1
According to federal regulations, the Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed uses to be made of the federal revenue sharing funds, followed by a public budget hearing. At each of these meetings, the plaintiffs [deputies] appeared and requested that the funds be used to pay their proposed salary increases which had been reduced by the Board. 2
The final budget approved by the Board did not include the full amount of the requested salary increase. In a mandamus proceeding brought by the deputies, the trial court directed the Commissioners and the Board to include federal revenue sharing funds in computing the estimate of probable income and to appropriate sufficient funds from county and federal revenues to pay the maximum salary increase for that fiscal year. 3 The deputies also sought to have costs and counsel fees assessed. The trial court denied the defendants' [Board's and Commissioners'] motion for new trial and assessed against them attorney's fees and set an appeal bond. The defendants bring this appeal.
In an original proceeding in this court, the defendants sought to prohibit the enforcement of an order requiring them to each make an "appeal and supersedeas" bond for $6,000 to stay execution of judgment. We found the trial judge's order--made under the provisions of 12 O.S.1971 § 974--to have been improper and prohibited its enforcement.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNTY EXCISE BOARD AT BUDGET PLANNING
The Board contends that the trial court erred in finding that--prior to the submission of estimate of needs--it had the discretion, and exercised it, to approve the number of deputies and assistants and to approve the maximum salaries requested by the county officers. The Board further argues that a recommendation made by one of its members--that county officers submit a request for maximum salaries--is not an appropriation for salaries within the meaning of 68 O.S.1971 § 2486. 4
These contentions require an examination of the statutory scheme for annual budget preparation and the procedures for review and approval. 5
As the chief fiscal agency of the county, the Commissioners on the first Monday in July are required to begin preparing the county's financial statement for the previous year ending June 30th. 6 By this date, county officers and department heads must submit their estimates of needs to the Commissioners. 7 The county clerk, along with the county treasurer, prepares an annual "financial exhibit" and forwards it to the Commissioners. 8 From the reports submitted, the Commissioners prepare an estimate of needs and financial statement 9 which must then be published in a legally-qualified newspaper. 10 The clerk and treasurer's annual financial exhibit must also be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. 11 The Commissioners' final step in the budget-making process is to submit the completed estimate of need and financial statement to the Board by July 10th. 12
The Board functions as a watchdog agency which is empowered to require adequate and accurate reporting of finances and expenditures for all budgets and supplemental purposes and to review all appropriations and requests to determine if they are legal and adequately funded. 13
Before June 30th of each year, the Board provides principal officers of the county with an estimate of anticipated revenues for the coming year and conducts a budget planning conference with them to discuss personnel needs. 14 The Board then convenes the first Monday in July to examine the county budget. 15 At this meeting it also fixes the time and place for public hearings on the estimated needs certified by each of its municipalities. 16 The Board receives financial statements from the various segments of county government (i.e. Commissioners, municipalities, etc.). In reviewing the financial statements, the Board (a) checks for the legality of estimated needs, (b) sees that all mandatory items are included and (c) computes the total means available for each fund. 17 After the financial statements and estimates of needs have been reviewed, public hearings have been held and necessary changes are made in the estimate of needs, the budget is approved by the Board and filed in the county clerk's office. 18
In the instant case, a member of the Board met with various heads of county government at a budget planning conference as provided by 19 O.S.Supp.1979 § 180.65 G. The deputies urge that the statements made by a Board member at these preliminary sessions--to the effect that the county officers should include in their estimate of needs maximum salary increases for deputies--constitute an appropriation within the meaning of 68 O.S.1971 § 2486 which the Board may not later reduce.
We cannot agree. The § 180.65 G conference is but a preliminary step in the budget planning process. It occurs well in advance of the budget review process and before the estimates of needs have been submitted. No action taken by individual board members at this stage of the budget process can be construed as constituting an appropriation under § 2486. The term "appropriation" is defined by 68 O.S.1971 § 2482 as being "synonymous with 'estimate made and approved' ". 19 Approval within the meaning of "estimate made and approved" occurs at the conclusion of the budget review process--not at the initial budget planning stage. The several items of estimated needs, when approved by the Board, constitute an appropriation of funds for the purposes named in the estimate. 20 When the budgetary planning, review and approval process is completed, the Board's power to deny an appropriation is limited by the provisions of 68 O.S.1971 § 2486. 21 Any suggestions made by Board members at the budget planning conference cannot be construed as constituting approval of a final budget item.
In short, none of these statutory provisions authorize an appropriation for salaries prior to the completion of the statutory scheme for budgetary review and approval. The meeting by a single Board member with county officials in the instant case can be considered no more than a budget planning session as authorized by 19 O.S.Supp.1979 § 180.65 G.
THE COUNTY EXCISE BOARD HAS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO
The statutory scheme for determining compensation of first and second deputies or assistants and the number of deputies for each office is found in 19 O.S.Supp.1979 § 180.65. That section provides for salary limits computed on a percentage of the principal officer's salary--90% for the first deputy and 80% for the second. The amounts authorized for salaries within this limitation are those (1) which the principal officer may propose and establish the need for and (2) which the Board may approve. 22 Approval in this sense occurs after the budgetary review process and is synonymous with "final budget approval".
The "salary or rate of pay" is based upon "responsibility, risks,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clay v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County
... ... Summey v. Tisdale, 658 P.2d 464, 469-470 (Okla.1982); Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 701 P.2d 754, ... ...
-
Tulsa County Budget Board v. Tulsa County Excise Board
... ... Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK 95, ¶ 15, 701 P.2d 754 ; Summey v. Tisdale, 1982 OK 133, ¶ 18, 658 P.2d 464 ... 36. Title 68 O.S ... ...
-
House of Realty, Inc. v. City of Midwest City
... ... of Greer County, 1984 OK 95, 701 P.2d 754, 758-759, where the Court stated that Summey v. Tisdale, 1982 OK 133, 658 P.2d 464, an opinion decided while the Rogers was pending, was ... ...
-
Hess v. Excise Bd. of McCurtain County, 61278
... ... Conservancy District No. 30, Okl., 385 P.2d 796, 800 [1963] ... 10 68 O.S.1981 § 2487; Summey v. Tisdale, Okl., 658 P.2d 464, 468-469 [1982]; Excise Board of Greer County v. Rogers, Okl., --- ... ...