STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6422

February 19, 1987

TOWNSHIPS:

Resolution of township board fixing salaries of township officers

In a general law township which has abolished the annual meeting, the township board shall determine the salaries of township officers by adopting a separate and independent resolution fixing the salary of each township officer.

Honorable John Bennett

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have requested my opinion concerning the statutory authority of a township board, in a township which has abolished the annual township meeting, to raise salaries of officers composing the township board. Your question is:

The materials accompanying your letter center on action taken by the Redford Township Board in 1972. According to information received from Richard Dunsmore, Deputy Clerk of Redford Township, the Redford Township Board, on December 27, 1972, passed a resolution amending the 1972-73 Redford Township budget which allowed "pay adjustment terms" for the township board to correspond with police and firefighter contracts. The resolution stated:

According to information received from the Redford Township Clerk's office, the December 27, 1972 resolution still serves as the basis by which the Redford Township Board determines salaries of officers composing the township board. The procedures used by the Redford Township Board to determine such salaries are as follows:

a) First, the salaries are adjusted to correspond with terms of township police and fire department contracts negotiated in the collective bargaining process, if timely;

b) Second, the salaries of the Redford Township Board members are fixed as specific line items in the township budget which is adopted by resolution.

Redford Township has abolished its annual meeting and has not adopted a compensation commission.

Although a township board is not precluded from using raises obtained by firemen and policemen in the collective bargaining process as a guideline for salary increases for township officers, any salaries so determined must be fixed by electors or adopted by board resolution as provided by law. The controlling statutory provisions relating to the Redford Township Board's determination of township board salaries are found in MCL 41.95(2) and (3); MSA 5.82(2) and (3), which state, in pertinent part:

In a township subject to MCL 41.95(2); MSA 5.82(2), which has abolished its annual meeting, the township board is required to determine salaries of officers comprising the township board so that qualified electors may petition, if they so choose, to have the electorate approve or disapprove the salary resolution. MCL 41.95(2); MSA 5.82(2), refers to a resolution adopted by the township board which would specify the salaries adopted by the township board for each township officer whose salary is to be affected.

The question of whether a township board may raise the salaries of township officers by resolution was considered in Deshler v Grigg, 90 Mich App 49; 282 NW2d 237 (1979), lv den, 407 Mich 875 (1979), where the court construed MCL 41.95(1) and (3); MSA 5.82(1) and (3). In Deshler, the salary of each township officer was listed as a departmental appropriation line item in the budget which was then adopted. No separate and independent resolution was adopted by the township board specifying the salary of each township officer. Subsequently, the township board passed a resolution retroactively fixing the salaries of the township officers as previously determined in the departmental appropriation line items within the budget. The court upheld the adoption of the resolution by the township board which retroactively fixed the salaries of the township officers as determined in the previously-adopted budget resolution.

In Deshler, the court found that a township board, pursuant to MCL 41.95(3); MSA 5.82(3), could pass a resolution retroactively fixing the salaries of its board members as determined by departmental appropriation line items listed in a previously-adopted budget as long as the action did not affect the rights of third persons, such as the right of township electors to reject the amounts of any salaries of township board members previously determined by a board resolution pursuant to the second sentence of MCL 41.95(3); MSA 5.82(3). At page 55 of Deshler, the court stated:

The clear implication of Deshler is that the electors must have plain notice and the notice must be accomplished by a separate resolution fixing the salaries of township officers. Following the adoption of a separate and independent resolution fixing such salaries, township electors may act to circulate petitions seeking a referendum on the resolution. Fixing salaries by merely including them in a line item in a budget resolution will not suffice. The resolution passed by the township board adopting a budget, listing township officers' salaries within departmental appropriation line item, is not such a separate and independent resolution.

It is my opinion, therefore, that in a general law township which has abolished the annual meeting, the township board, pursuant to MCL 41.95(2) and (3); MSA 5.82(2) and (3), shall determine the salaries of township officers by adopting a separate and independent resolution fixing the salary for each township officer.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General