Opinion No. 60-212
November 18, 1960
TO: Mr. Walter R. Kegel District Attorney First Judicial District Santa Fe, New Mexico
QUESTION
QUESTION
What is the correct salary for deputy county assessors in first class counties having an assessed valuation of more than twenty-seven million dollars ($ 27,000,000), but less than forty-five million dollars ($ 45,000,000)?
CONCLUSION
Four thousand dollars ($ 4,000.00) per year.
OPINION
{*631} ANALYSIS
Your question requires a reconsideration of Attorney General's Opinion No. 60-171, dated September 21, 1960, which dealt with this identical question. This office wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the originator of this request, Mr. Walter R. Kegel, in performing research on this question and preparing a memorandum for our use.
Opinion No. 60-171, supra, held the salary in question was four thousand six hundred dollars ($ 4,600.00) per year. This result was reached solely through application of a well-known rule of statutory construction that where the words and figures in legislation conflict, the words shall be deemed to control. This rule was not applied as a rule of law, absolutely requiring the indicated result, but as a rule of construction to determine legislative intent. It is the intention of the legislature that we seek, and, once found, our inquiry is at an end. If there is other strong evidence of legislative intent, it is unnecessary to apply the rule of construction employed in Opinion No. 60-171, supra, for that rule is only helpful where there is an absence of legislative intent.
This question arises as a result of a conflict between the words and figures used in Chapter 262, Laws of 1959, Section 4 (A) (3), which deals with the salary of deputy county assessors in first class counties having an assessed valuation of more than twenty-seven million dollars ($ 27,000,000). The words express the salary as four thousand six hundred dollars; the figures express the salary as $ 4,000.00.
A review of Chapter 262, Laws of 1959, indicates that, for each class of county, with the exception of the counties in question, the salaries of the deputies of the county treasurer, county assessor, and county clerk are identical. It is only in first class counties having an assessed valuation of more than twenty-seven million dollars ($ 27,000,000) that any disparity occurs. This striking fact is illustrated by the following table:
CLASSIFICATION DEPUTY DEPUTY DEPUTY
OF COUNTY TREASURER ASSESSOR CLERK
Class A $ 7392 $ 7392 $ 7392
Class B 5280 5280 5280
Class C 5280 5280 5280
First Class over
$ 27,000,000 4000 4600 4000
First Class under
$ 27,000,000 3696 3696 3696
Second Class 2970 2970 2970
Third Class 2530 2530 2530
Fourth Class 2112 2112 2112
Fifth Class 1650 1650 1650
{*632} This uniformity indicates that the legislature intended to provide the same salary, within each class of county, for the offices of deputy county treasurer, deputy county assessor, and deputy county clerk. Such strong evidence compels us to hold that such was, in fact, the legislative intent, and we find it unnecessary to resort to rules of construction to determine that intent.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the salary of a deputy county assessor in first class counties having an assessed valuation of more than twenty-seven million dollars ($ 27,000,000), but less than forty-five million dollars ($ 45,000,000), is four thousand dollars ($ 4,000.00) per year.
Attorney General's Opinion No. 60-171, September 21, 1960, is expressly overruled.
By: Norman S. Thayer
Assistant Attorney General