Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether a municipal clerk of courts was entitled to an in-term salary increase resulting from an amendment to the statutory salary of the county clerk of courts. The court held that Ohio Constitution Article II, Section 20 prohibits direct legislative changes to the statutory compensation formula during an officer’s term, but does not bar incidental increases caused by changes to a factor used in that formula. The court rejected the contrary reasoning of State ex rel. Edgecomb v. Rosen and reversed the court of appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Article II, Section 20 of the Ohio Constitution prohibits a municipal clerk of courts from receiving an in-term salary increase resulting indirectly from an amendment to the statutory factor used to calculate the clerk's compensation.
- Whether the reasoning of State ex rel. Edgecomb v. Rosen, concerning in-term salary increases resulting from changes to related compensation provisions, should be rejected.
Holdings
- Article II, Section 20 prohibits an in-term salary increase resulting from direct legislative action changing the statutory provision or formula that fixes the officer's compensation, but it does not prohibit an increase that results from a change in an external factor used by an unchanged compensation formula.
- The reasoning of State ex rel. Edgecomb v. Rosen is rejected to the extent it treated any legislative action indirectly producing an in-term salary increase as triggering Article II, Section 20's prohibition.
Key quotations
“When a statute setting forth the formula for the compensation of an officer is effective before the commencement of the officer’s term, any salary increase which results from a change in one of the factors used by the statute to calculate the compensation is payable to the officer.” (135)
“Section 20, Article II of the Constitution forbids the granting of in-term salary increases to officers when such changes are the result of direct legislative action on the section(s) of the Revised Code which are the basis of the officers’ salaries.” (135)
Factual background
R.C. 1901.31(C) provided that, in municipalities meeting the specified population threshold, a municipal clerk of courts would receive compensation equal to eighty-five percent of the municipal court judge's salary, subject to a ceiling based on the county clerk of courts' salary. The county clerk's salary increased in January 1981, which increased the ceiling applicable to the appellant's compensation, but the appellant was denied the corresponding increase under Article II, Section 20 of the Ohio Constitution.
Procedural history
The appellant requested a salary increase after the salary of the county clerk of courts was increased in January 1981. The request was denied on the ground that Article II, Section 20 of the Ohio Constitution prohibited an in-term salary increase. The court of appeals affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed.