OPALA, Justice:

The dispositive issues in this appeal are: [1] Were salary recommendations made by a member of the county excise board, during the budget planning stage, sufficient to constitute an "appropriation of funds" for that purpose? [2] Did the county excise board have the discretion to reduce the salary rate proposed by principal county officers for their deputies? and [3] Did the county excise board abuse its discretion by arbitrarily reducing the proposed salary increases for deputies in the county offices? We answer the first and third questions in the negative and the second in the affirmative.

FACTS

This case involves a dispute between several deputies in the various offices of county government in Atoka County — county clerk, court clerk, county assessor, treasurer and sheriff — and the Excise Board and Board of County Commissioners over the reduction in the recommended salary increases for the fiscal year 1979-1980.

The principal officers filed with the County Commissioners [Commissioners] their annual budget report which included an estimate of their needs and income for the ensuing fiscal year as well as a report of the earnings and cost of maintenance of their respective offices for the previous year. The Commissioners prepared a budget from these estimates and submitted it to the Excise Board [Board] for approval. This report also included an estimate of probable income from sources other than ad valorem taxes.

According to federal regulations, the Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed uses to be made of the federal revenue sharing funds, followed by a public budget hearing. At each of these meetings, the plaintiffs [deputies] appeared and requested that the funds be used to pay their proposed salary increases which had been reduced by the Board.

The final budget approved by the Board did not include the full amount of the requested salary increase. In a mandamus proceeding brought by the deputies, the trial court directed the Commissioners and the Board to include federal revenue sharing funds in computing the estimate of probable income and to appropriate sufficient funds from county and federal revenues to pay the maximum salary increase for that fiscal year. The deputies also sought to have costs and counsel fees assessed. The trial court denied the defendants' [Board's and Commissioners'] motion for new trial and assessed against them attorney's fees and set an appeal bond. The defendants bring this appeal.

In an original proceeding in this court, the defendants sought to prohibit the enforcement of an order requiring them to each make an "appeal and supersedeas" bond for $6,000 to stay execution of judgment. We found the trial judge's order — made under the provisions of 12 O.S. 1971 § 974[ 12-974] — to have been improper and prohibited its enforcement.

I.

RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNTY EXCISE BOARD AT BUDGET PLANNING CONFERENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

The Board contends that the trial court erred in finding that — prior to the submission of estimate of needs — it had the discretion, and exercised it, to approve the number of deputies and assistants and to approve the maximum salaries requested by the county officers. The Board further argues that a recommendation made by one of its members — that county officers submit a request for maximum salaries — is not an appropriation for salaries within the meaning of 68 O.S. 1971 § 2486[ 68-2486].

These contentions require an examination of the statutory scheme for annual budget preparation and the procedures for review and approval.

A. The Commissioners' Statutory Duties

As the chief fiscal agency of the county, the Commissioners on the first Monday in July are required to begin preparing the county's financial statement for the previous year ending June 30th. By this date, county officers and department heads must submit their estimates of needs to the Commissioners. The county clerk, along with the county treasurer, prepares an annual "financial exhibit" and forwards it to the Commissioners. From the reports submitted, the Commissioners prepare an estimate of needs and financial statement which must then be published in a legally-qualified newspaper. The clerk and treasurer's annual financial exhibit must also be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. The Commissioners' final step in the budget-making process is to submit the completed estimate of need and financial statement to the Board by July 10th.

B. The Board's Budget Review Process

The Board functions as a watchdog agency which is empowered to require adequate and accurate reporting of finances and expenditures for all budgets and supplemental purposes and to review all appropriations and requests to determine if they are legal and adequately funded.

Before June 30th of each year, the Board provides principal officers of the county with an estimate of anticipated revenues for the coming year and conducts a budget planning conference with them to discuss personnel needs. The Board then convenes the first Monday in July to examine the county budget. At this meeting it also fixes the time and place for public hearings on the estimated needs certified by each of its municipalities. The Board receives financial statements from the various segments of county government (i.e. Commissioners, municipalities, etc.). In reviewing the financial statements, the Board (a) checks for the legality of estimated needs, (b) sees that all mandatory items are included and (c) computes the total means available for each fund. After the financial statements and estimates of needs have been reviewed, public hearings have been held and necessary changes are made in the estimate of needs, the budget is approved by the Board and filed in the county clerk's office.

In the instant case, a member of the Board met with various heads of county government at a budget planning conference as provided by 19 O.S.Supp. 1979 § 180.65[ 19-180.65] G. The deputies urge that the statements made by a Board member at these preliminary sessions — to the effect that the county officers should include in their estimate of needs maximum salary increases for deputies — constitute an appropriation within the meaning of 68 O.S. 1971 § 2486[ 68-2486] which the Board may not later reduce.

We cannot agree. The § 180.65 G conference is but a preliminary step in the budget planning process. It occurs well in advance of the budget review process and before the estimates of needs have been submitted. No action taken by individual board members at this stage of the budget process can be construed as constituting an appropriation under § 2486. The term "appropriation" is defined by 68 O.S. 1971 § 2482[ 68-2482] as being "synonymous with `estimate made and approved'". Approval within the meaning of "estimate made and approved" occurs at the conclusion of the budget review process — not at the initial budget planning stage. The several items of estimated needs, when approved by the Board, constitute an appropriation of funds for the purposes named in the estimate. When the budgetary planning, review and approval process is completed, the Board's power to deny an appropriation is limited by the provisions of 68 O.S. 1971 § 2486[ 68-2486]. Any suggestions made by Board members at the budget planning conference cannot be construed as constituting approval of a final budget item.

In short, none of these statutory provisions authorize an appropriation for salaries prior to the completion of the statutory scheme for budgetary review and approval. The meeting by a single Board member with county officials in the instant case can be considered no more than a budget planning session as authorized by 19 O.S.Supp. 1979 § 180.65[ 19-180.65] G.

II.

THE COUNTY EXCISE BOARD HAS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SALARY RATE FOR DEPUTIES

The statutory scheme for determining compensation of first and second deputies or assistants and the number of deputies for each office is found in 19 O.S.Supp. 1979 § 180.65[ 19-180.65]. That section provides for salary limits computed on a percentage of the principal officer's salary — 90% for the first deputy and 80% for the second. The amounts authorized for salaries within this limitation are those (1) which the principal officer may propose and establish the need for and (2) which the Board may approve. Approval in this sense occurs after the budgetary review process and is synonymous with "final budget approval".

The "salary or rate of pay" is based upon "responsibility, risks, skills, training, and experience required for such position and afforded by the subordinate". The Board may reduce the salaries listed in the estimate of needs — prior to budget approval — when (a) the needs exceed the means, (b) any items in the estimates are considered to be in excess of needs or (c) any item is unlawful.

In the instant case, the Board's power to establish salary rates for deputies in county offices is based on 1979 legislative amendments to the county budget process. The pre-1979 legislative history of 19 O.S. 1981 § 180.65[ 19-180.65] and 68 O.S. 1981 § 2487[ 68-2487] reveals that the Board had a limited role in reviewing the needs of local government. Under the 1971 version of § 180.65, county officers had to secure the approval of the county commissioners in order to establish the number of deputies for the county offices and to fix their salary rate. Legislative amendments in 1976 eliminated the commissioners' authority to review salary and staffing needs. That authority was reposed solely in the county officers. When § 180.65 was amended in 1979, it placed in the county excise boards the power to review requests for salaries and staffing and required that the county excise boards meet with the elected officers in a budget planning conference to discuss personnel needs and disclose anticipated revenues. The 1979 legislature, in the same bill by which § 180.65 was amended, made another significant change in the county budget process. The terms of 68 O.S. 1971 § 2487[ 68-2487] [ 68-2487] were amended to authorize county excise boards to strike from the budget requests items that are "in excess of needs". The 1979 changes in the statutory scheme evince clear legislative intent to give county excise boards discretion to approve salaries as well as to reduce the amount requested when the proposed budget reflects that the salary rate is in excess of needs.

When the discretion to approve salaries inhered in the county commissioners under the pre-1976 budgetary scheme, we said that it "was not an absolute discretion and is not discretion that can be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously." This principle obtains in the instant case. Whether the Board has acted arbitrarily, or in abuse of legal discretion, is to be determined by the facts in the particular case.

The record reveals that the plaintiffs (deputies) received a monthly salary increase of approximately $80, or a 15% increase over the previous fiscal year, bringing their monthly salaries up to $600 or 73% of the principal officer's salary. The principal officers had recommended the maximum salaries allowable by law — 90% for the first deputy and 80% for the second. Had the recommended salaries been approved, first deputies stood to receive an annual salary increase of over 40% and second deputies over 25%.

An examination of the record reveals that salary increases had been granted in prior years. The approved $600 monthly salary rate was in keeping with the salaries received by deputies in adjacent counties with a similar tax base. They were also commensurate with the wages of workers in the community doing comparable types of work. None of the deputies said they would quit if the full amount of the raise was not allowed. The defendants indicated that if any of the deputies should quit suitable replacements could be found. The Board took into consideration numerous fiscal factors in reaching its decision of allowing only a 15% salary increase. Among those were the fact that the net valuations of the county had increased by only 5% over the preceding year and that the population had increased only 10% over a five-year period last preceding.

The record in the present case does not indicate that the Board's actions were arbitrary. In the Board's opinion, the needs of the county were best met by maintaining salaries at a level commensurate with that in the community and in adjacent counties with similar tax bases. Although the Board did not adopt in full the recommendations of the county officers, it did approve a 15% salary increase. There was no evidence to indicate that the maximum salary rate was needed to meet increased work loads or that there was a need for more qualified personnel or improved community services which could only be met by approval of the recommended salary increases. Neither was it shown that the Board's decision to reduce the proposed salary increase had a personal motive and did not relate to the Board's legal discretion. In short, the facts and law of this case clearly show that the Board was neither arbitrary nor capricious in the exercise of its judgment and discretion under the 1979 statutory budget scheme.

The trial court's judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendants.

IRWIN, C.J., BARNES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN, HARGRAVE and WILSON, JJ., concur.