Since it has not come up here and the statute doesn't seem to require it, I suppose there is no lurking issue about whether each time an assistant prosecutor comes up for an increase in pay under sec. 41.252(a)the DA should again certify eligibility under subsection (b)? 41.254(b) refers only to "the increase", so apparently it is up to the treasurer to keep track of who is eligible and for how much after the initial certification. Anyone handling this differently?
A bigger worry is whether the Legislature, in a budget shortfall session, will fund the longevity pay. We should note that Rep. Vilma Luna, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation last session and got the bill passed, recently pledged support for Rep. Craddick, a Republican, as Speaker of the House.
Prosecutors who care about such things would do well to send her a note of thanks and encouragement.
Any of you felony assistants who are receiving a longevity supplement and are interested in keeping it (!) should contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you want to help ensure its survival.
Those of you who have already contacted me can expect to hear something more on this in the near future ...
John, believe me, I am plenty worried about the bigger issue. But, I just wanted to be sure that if I do not have a renewed certificate of eligibility on file someone wouldn't surprise me by saying the flow of cash (or maybe just the extra 66 cents a day for another year of service) has to stop (even before the legislature meets). To me, the statute lacked a bit in clarity on this point.
|Powered by Social Strata|
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.