March 18, 1996
Janet L. Shires, Secretary Property Tax Commission Post Office Box 871 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Re: Advisory Opinion; North Carolina Property Tax Commission; Effect of increased compensation for commission members upon dual office holding restrictions; N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-288(d).
Dear Ms. Shires:
From your letter of 15 February 1996 and accompanying materials we understand that members of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission ("Commission") are paid $200 per day, plus $55 daily for expenses. You indicate that the number of appeals filed with the Commission, as well as their complexity, has dramatically increased in recent years. Given its burgeoning caseload and its level of compensation which has not increased since 1979, the Commission is concerned about its ability to attract qualified individuals to serve as members in the future. To address this possible situation, the Commission is considering requesting legislation which in part would raise compensation to $500 per week, plus $500 for each day of hearings, not to exceed $51,366, and which would increase per diem expenses to $75.
In deference to the Commission’s present membership, before proceeding with legislation along these lines, you request our opinion as to "whether a county manger may continue to serve on the Property Tax Commission if the level of compensation is increased or paid as a salary?"
The answer to your inquiry was foreshadowed in our Advisory Opinion issued 27 January 1995 where we advised that dual office holding prohibitions do not disqualify a county manager from also serving on the Property Tax Commission. The extent of the requested compensation increase suggests that at some point the county member likely will draw the equivalent of two full-time salaries, with attendant demands upon his time. Generally, no dual office holding restrictions arise simply by virtue of the remuneration provided by each office. More specifically, the eligibility of a county manager for appointment to the Commission is not dependent upon the amount of the employee’s governmental salary. In short, the Commission’s proposed compensation package, whatever its scope, technically cannot jeopardize the continued membership of an individual who happens also to be employed as a county manager.
Ultimately your question depends not so much upon a discrete legal analysis of principles involving dual office holding, but instead, what constitutes good "county" policy. The anticipated increased compensation to proportions of a full time salary creates a host of administrative and policy issues that the member’s employer will need to resolve locally. For instance, the county will need to address how it will handle requests from other employees to also work extensive part-time jobs, or, what measures the county will need to implement to ensure that its manager is not paid county funds for performing duties while simultaneously receiving compensation and benefits from the Commission for the same period. Perhaps the State and Local Government Finance Division within the Department of State Treasurer could assist the county in developing accounting guidelines and other fiscal procedures to prevent the
potentially embarrassing perception of double-dipping. We hope the foregoing is helpful. Reginald L. Watkins
Senior Deputy Attorney General
George W. Boylan
Special Deputy Attorney General