Elected county officials are getting a pay raise.

Giving county officials a raise is complicated as the Arizona Constitution spells out specifically how and when their salary can be increased.

The Legislature has passed and the governor has signed a proposal to raise the annual salary of seven county officials — the county attorney, assessor, recorder, sheriff, superintendent of schools, supervisors and treasurer — by approximately 13 percent.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2009, the county attorney, for example, will get $123,678, up from $109,450. The sheriff will get $100,824; the sheriff currently gets $89,225. Regardless of the size of the counties, these two officials currently receive the same pay; other officials get a sum depending upon the size of their county.

Why are these officials getting more than state employees?

They’re just getting the increase up front rather than spread over four years, according to Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-5, author of H2102.

Elected officials’ salaries cannot be changed during their terms

The reason for that is that under the Arizona Constitution an elected county official’s salary cannot be changed during his or her term of office, according to Konopnicki. County elections are held simultaneously with presidential elections, which means an officer’s salary cannot be changed except once every four years.

Under the law, it is the Legislature that sets elected county officials’ pay. Also under the law, lawmakers can set state employees’ salary hike annually. The fiscal 2007-2008 budget contains a 3.25 percent pay hike for state employees and $46 million for increases in teachers’ pay.

“County officials I’m sure would have been happy with a three and a half (percent increase) over (each of) four years, which would have been roughly the equivalent of what everyone else got,” Konopnicki said. “But that isn’t what the Constitution allows.”

“If you want to attract and keep good people for these county jobs, absolutely,” he said when asked if the officers needed a raise. The jobs are essentially full-time and pointing out that other non-elected county officials usually receive more pay, he said.

H2102 also allows counties to fix the amount of license fees on games and amusements in unincorporated areas.

One of those who vigorously opposed the measure was Sen. Ron Gould, R-3. Gould initially successfully pushed for an amendment, the gist of which was to prohibit a salary increase except through a roll call vote of the majority of the board of supervisors in a public meeting.

That meant the officials could still get the pay hike but with the caveat that the board had to vote to accept the increase. That amendment was later removed in a conference committee.

By offering the amendment, Gould said he intended to make officials accountable and perhaps also to shame them into not accepting the pay raise. He had argued that under the current system, an official could simply shrug his shoulders and say the pay hike was given by the Legislature; he or she could not refuse it.

Gould’s maneuvers had upset Konopnicki, who said the senator never approached him about the changes he wanted to make on the bill. Gould quipped back saying there is no rule stating he has to get the sponsor’s permission to amend a bill.