Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-353 (2026)

County employee merit system commission; members; terms; vacancies

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. On the adoption of a county employee merit system the board of supervisors shall appoint a county employee merit system commission to assist in administering the system. The commission shall consist of five members, each of whom shall hold office for a term of four years and until a successor is appointed and qualified. Of the members first appointed, two shall serve for a two-year term, two for a three-year term and one shall serve a four-year term, and the members shall determine by lot the length of their terms. Appointment to fill a vacancy caused by other than expiration of term shall be for the unexpired portion of the term.

B. Members of the commission shall be selected from among the qualified electors of the county. No more than three of the members shall be from the same political party.

C. If the members of the county employee merit system commission are the same members that the board of supervisors appoints to the county merit system council for law enforcement officers established pursuant to section 38-1002, the board of supervisors may appoint the members of the county employee merit system commission to five-year terms consistent with the terms prescribed by section 38-1002, subsection C. To make the terms consistent, a member's current term on the county employee merit system commission shall extend to the date on which the member's current term on the county merit system council for law enforcement officers expires. The subsequent term of office will be five years as prescribed by section 38-1002, subsection C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Saldate v. Montgomery, 268 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Saldate v. Montgomery, 268 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “Resolution § 1; see also AR.S. § 11-353 (2001). The Resolution requires that the Commission adopt the Rules to properly enforce the Resolution.”

Hounshell v. White, 202 P.3d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 11-241 (2001) (clerk of the board); A.R.S. § 11-353 (2001) (merit system commission members); A.”

Lawall v. Pima Cnty. Merit Comm'n & Scammon, 134 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 11-354 defines the powers and duties of a commission as those “necessary to carry out the provisions of this article.” The procedure for employee appeals is set forth in § 11-356, which provides: A.”

Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “5 Furthermore, a deputy’s appeal of the Sheriff’s disciplinary action would go to the Maricopa County Merit System Commission, see § 11-356(B), which acts independently of the County, see A.R.S. §§ 11-353 and -354. 9 SANCHEZ ET AL.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-353(A) — 1 case

Saldate v. Montgomery, 268 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “Resolution § 1; see also AR.S. § 11-353 (2001). The Resolution requires that the Commission adopt the Rules to properly enforce the Resolution.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.