For those elected folks in the crowd, you know what a pain it often is to deal with commissioners in trying to secure adequate funding for staff members, particularly attorneys. After all, just why should they make more than a grader driver???? One of my counties is instituting a county longevity pay policy. It's not a lot of money - $60 annually per year of service up to a max of $1200 annually. However, it appears that they are proposing that my ADAs NOT get the county longevity pay since they get state longevity pay. I want to make my best argument why that is a bunch of hooey. fyi, all of my ADAs have at least 4 years of service so they are all drawing some state longevity pay. None of my lawyers are permitted to have a private practice (as opposed to the assistant county attorneys who are going to get the additonal $) but they are making pretty good salaries when compared with other counties of the same size. But, I'd sure appreciate some good arguments to try to get the commissioners to reconsider their position. I know that it's apples and oranges and that the state longevity pay doesn't cost the county anything in the long run but I need more. I've already considered painting my folks yellow and writing CAT on them. But seriously, can anybody give me some good solid arguments?

Reason 1: County employees should be treated equally by the county. If longevity pay is given to county employees, then it should apply equally to every employee. Lawsuit to follow.

Reason 2: County longevity pay is designed to keep employees working for the SAME county for a longer period of time. Turnover is expensive for counties because of the downtime, training and loss of experience in decision-making. State longevity pay is designed to keep a person in prosecution but necessarily in a particular county. So, the county should want to encourage keeping all employees, including prosecutors.

Reason 3: Geez, what could be the extra cost? My goodness, for a few thousand dollars, the county has an inexpensive way to keep an employee happy. By saving a few buck, the county creates a new class of employee and an ongoing irritant between prosecutors and all other county employees. Lawsuit to follow.

Bound to be some more reasons.

Our commissioners had the same resistance when the state longevity came into play. Collin County already had a county-wide longevity pay program in place and didn't see why only ADAs should get both. They wanted to eliminate one. So far, both survive.

quote:

---

I've already considered painting my folks yellow and writing CAT on them.

---

Now THAT is funny.

Mike, I wonder, if Asst. CAs get added to the state longevity pay statute next session, is your county going to retroactively cut them out of the county pay? That should be fun to watch! Or if not, how can they justify the different treatment?

Also, talk to your local sheriff -- I seem to recall that deputies have their own funky longevity pay mandate from the state in some counties -- if that applies to your county, are they getting cut out too?

Thanks for all of the great reasons but... they might all just make a little too much sense for my audience (-; However, John, the mention of a lawsuit might do the trick. Two members of the group have been to federal court re civil rights violation-type issues and they didn't have a good time...

Mike, point out that your OTHER, smaller, county pays longevity pay to its prosecutors in addition to the State supplement. Surely your big jurisdiction doesn't want to be seen as lacking in comparison.

"The county may not reduce the salary of the assistant prosecutor to offset the longevity pay supplement." This language in 41.255 may not be directly helpful but I think that it sure shows the intent of the legislature to not allow counties to use state-mandated longevity pay as an excuse to pay assistant prosecutors less than what they would normally make. Agree?

Dan, I thought about that but I'm concerned that they may persuade my southern jurisdiction CC to pull the plug on you folks. I don't want to chance that... I'm sure that you agree. Btw, they are thinking about paying it to adult probation department employees who are clearly state employees as I understand it. But then again, in an effort to rectify the wrong in my office, I don't want to be seen as attempting to try to hurt the chances of others to get the pay.

You might also point out that the longevity pay your prosecutors get from the state statute does not cost your county a dime.

To qualify for the longevity, do you have to earn all of the years working for a felony office?

I have some experience in a county attorney's office. I'm curious if that counts towards my total of years as a prosecutor.

The service credit is limited to time spent as an assistant DA or CDA or assistant CA to a county attorney with felony responsibility.

Interesting follow up. Collin County Commissioners stopped longevity for elected officials this week (some getting over $10k/ annum). On the next agenda is a proposal to cut it for regular employees as well.

I think the argument that someone who keeps his position only by election should be limited to the salary his opponent would otherwise receive is valid. But, government should respect the expertise that normally accompanies experience for those who serve by another form of selection. The county should not limit longevity pay to certain employees (even if the longevity of some is rewarded from some other source).

There is no question that the cost of turnover and inexperience can outweigh the nominal amounts normally offered county employees for their continued sacrifice. No doubt the commissioners recognize this in their own departments. Just like overtime and part-time employees make sense, so does longevity pay. But, as usual someone cannot see the forest for the trees.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 07-13-06 at .]

It seems that although the Commissioners agreed last year to include my ADAs in the county longevity pay arrangement, they are having second thoughts at budget prep time this year... Accordingly, I just wanted to know if anyone had any additional input on this topic. The earlier input from a year or so ago was much appreciated and very helpful. Only 4 lawyers are in the mix so we're talking about only 4 grand or so at the max per year. That's about 1/3 of the annual car allowance for EACH commissioner who, of course, gets the longevity pay.

From OAG Opinion No. JC-0438

"You next ask whether you may credit longevity pay currently provided pursuant to a county program to county employees generally to the $20 per month per service year payment to assistant prosecutors mandated by House Bill 178. You may not. Section 41.253(a) requires that the county supplement assistant prosecutors' pay by $20 per month for each year of lifetime service credit. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. � 41.253(a). Section 41.255(b) forbids the county to reduce the salary of an assistant prosecutor "to offset the longevity pay supplement." Id. � 41.255(b). Longevity pay is not merely a benefit, but is an element of salary. See Tex. Att'y Gen. LO-96-007, at 2 ("Longevity pay, an incremental increase in salary based on length of service, has been held to be a part of compensation.") (emphasis added) (citation omitted); Tex. Att'y Gen. LO-97-010, at 4 (longevity pay of Texas Youth Commission teachers included within salary rate). Reading sections 41.253(a) and 41.255(b) together, the statute requires the county to pay each assistant prosecutor who has accrued sufficient service time $20 per month more for each year of service time; that $20 per month is over and above the assistant prosecutor's present rate of compensation. Any crediting of some part of the prosecutor's present compensation is in our view indistinguishable from the offsetting the statute by its terms forbids."

I would think that the AG's argument could be applied here...offsetting a general county compensation benefit against the state career prosecutor supplement violates the "no offset" provision of 41.255(b). It does not matter which supplement came first. If the County elects to start a supplement, they must offer it to state-supplemented ADA's.

I agree with John, but should point out that a commissioners court is free to revisit a countywide compensation scheme. That is, section 41.255(b) prohibits an offset focused on the state supplement. It does not lock the commissioners into any universally-applicable longevity pay plan. Since there is no statutory requirement of providing purely county-funded longevity pay, commissioners could eliminate the program entirely (unless doing so would represent an abuse of discretion). But they may not target only those employees who receive a state supplement.

Thanks a lot, John and Scott! Good info!