As our supreme court has observed, at least as recent as the 1920s, fringe benefits such as employer-paid pension and insurance contributions were excluded from the definition of “compensation.” State ex rel. City of Manitowoc v. Police Pension Bd., 56 Wis. 2d 602, 611-12a, 203 N.W.2d 74 (1973). The court explained that both salary and compensation historically had the same meaning because “the payment of cash for services rendered was the only form of compensation in general use.” Id. at 611. . . . In summary, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 59.22(1)(a)1.’s prohibition against increasing or diminishing certain elected county officials’ compensation during the term of office does not preclude adjustments to fringe benefits. Rather, the statute expressly protects only salaries and fees. We agree with Cramer that the statute has laudable purposes, primarily, “preventing the influence of partisan bias or personal feeling [by] members of the [county] board in fixing the salary.” See Feavel v. City of Appleton, 234 Wis. 483, 488, 291 N.W. 830 (1940) (quoting Hull v. Winnebago Cnty., 54 Wis. 291, 293, 11 N.W. 486 (1882)). However, “[i]f, in view of modern day employment inducements, fringe benefits such as insurance premiums, pension fund contributions and perhaps others are to be included in the [compensation protection afforded to certain county elected officials], the legislature, as a matter of desirable public policy, can so provide. The court cannot.” See Police Pension Bd., 56 Wis. 2d at 612a. ¶ 8. The court’s reasoning in Cramer is equally applicable to the definition of “compensation” in Wis. Stat. § 59.10(3). Like Wis. Stat. § 59.22(1)(a)1., Wis. Stat. § 59.10(3) describes the “compensation” fixed pursuant to that provision as including only salary, per diems, or a combination thereof. The statutory provisions have a similar function: governing the fixing of compensation for particular elected county officials. Particularly given that parallel purpose, Wis. Stat. §§ 59.10(3) and 59.22(1)(a)1. should be construed consistently. It is thus my opinion that the term “compensation” in Wis. Stat. § 59.10(3) does not include the provision of insurance or county payment of insurance premiums. ¶ 9. Because the provision of insurance and county contributions toward insurance premiums are not forms of compensation under Wis. Stat. § 59.10(3), the procedural requirements of that statute do not apply to a proposed change to those benefits. A two-thirds vote is not required; the motion or proposal need not be made at the county board’s annual meeting; and changes may be made for supervisors beyond those to be next elected. ¶ 10. Your next question is whether the board is required to correct the determination made on the floor of the November 2011 meeting that a two-thirds vote of the board was required in order to effectuate a change in the level of supervisors’ contributions toward their health insurance premiums. I conclude that it is not. The motion that failed because it obtained only a simple majority was a combined proposal for salary and insurance contributions. Because proposals affecting salary require a two-thirds vote under Wis. Stat. § 59.10(3)(f), the conclusion that a two-thirds vote was required was correct as to that motion. The board can avoid this issue in the future by voting separately on motions or proposals involving salary and those involving insurance.
¶ 11. Your last question is whether Brown County Supervisors are entitled to insurance through the county at the levels established by the board on November 7, 2011, based on actions taken by the Board:
The county executive vetoed the funding for the insurance for the board of supervisors during the budget process in the amount of $64,638.00 which is the amount earmarked to pay for the insurance benefits of the county board [of] supervisors, effective April 17, 2012. . . . [W]ith the partial executive veto defunding the insurance benefits, but leaving the required benefit contribution in place at 50% for 2012 and 55% for 2013, this resulted in an approved benefit for the supervisors, but no appropriation to fund it. . . . [T]he insurance benefit remains in place as that was approved and not vetoed, but in order for the supervisors to now have this benefit [for the first year of the term] they would need to fund the entire amount of the premium contribution, as that portion was vetoed. . . . . [I]f the supervisor pays the full amount of the insurance benefit, the county is obligated to grant the benefit which was adopted by the board.
¶ 12. This question does not involve the interpretation of state statutes. Attorney General opinions should not be used as a device to ascertain the meaning and intent of municipal ordinances, resolutions, or motions. 77 Op. Att’y Gen. Preface, No. 3.H. (1988). Such determinations must be made by the corporation counsel after consulting with the county officials involved.
¶ 13. I conclude that, in a county that is not self-organized under Wis. Stat. § 59.10(1), the provision of health, dental, and life insurance and the payment of insurance premiums for county supervisors are not compensation under Wis. Stat. § 59.10(3). The procedural requirements of that statute, including a two-thirds vote, taking action at the board’s annual meeting, and limiting changes to the supervisory term beginning after the next supervisory election, do not apply to motions or proposals to change those benefits. Where a motion involves both salary and insurance, however, the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 59.10(3) apply because salary is a form of compensation under that statute. Sincerely,
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General
JBVH:FTC:cla
