AGO 85-9.

Case Date:April 12, 1985
Colorado Attorney General Opinions 1985. AGO 85-9. April 12, 1985Department of Law Attorney General Opinion FORMAL OPINION of DUANE WOODARD Attorney General Opinion No. 85-9 AG Alpha No. AD AC AGAOH James A. Stroup State Controller Department of Administration 1525 Sherman Street, Room 706 Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: State personnel system employee payroll lag.Dear Mr. Stroup: This letter is in response to your request for a formal opinion concerning your ability, under current state law, to implement a payroll system in which payday for employees in the state personnel system is after the end of the designated pay period and after work and leave time for the applicable pay period has been reported. QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION Whether existing state law permits state personnel system employee payrolls to be lagged beyond the end of the applicable pay period? My conclusion is that it does. ANALYSIS Section 24-50-104(1)(a), C.R.S. (1982) provides that salaries of positions in the state personnel system "shall be paid ... on or as of the last working day of each month" and that "calculations for monthly salaries due shall be made in advance of payday." (emphasis added). Under the current fiscal rules employees assigned to a regular payroll are paid on the last working day of the month. 1 CCR 101-2, section 2.45. Because payday coincides with the end of the applicable pay period, calculations of the monthly salaries due are necessarily made in advance of the end of the pay period, preventing verification of the actual time worked during such period. Under the payroll system you propose, calculations of monthly salaries due and actual payment would be made after the close of the applicable pay period. It is my opinion that such a system is permissible. Section 24-50-104(1)(a), C.R.S. (1982) permits payment of salaries to be made either on the last working day of the month, as is the current practice, or "as of" such date. Courts interpret the phrase "as of" to mean "as if it were." United States v. Munro-Van Helms Company, Inc., 243 F.2d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1951); Horwitz v. New York Life Ins. Co., 80 F.2d 295...

To continue reading