OPINION

WATT, J.:

¶ 1 The issue in this case examines whether the salary and retirement benefits for Plaintiff/Appellant Roger L. Price were correctly denied for a particular period of time between his suspension from office as Sheriff of Pawnee County, Oklahoma, pending trial, and his removal from office. We hold the benefits were improperly denied and reverse.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 On September 29, 2010, the grand jury filed an action for removal of Price as Sheriff of Pawnee County. Also, on September 29, 2010, the district court suspended Price from office pending the outcome of his trial. On October 29, 2010, before the trial, the Appellee/Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Pawnee County (Board) voted to suspend Price's pay and retirement benefits pending the outcome of his trial.1 The trial was held November 1-3, 2010, after which he was found guilty of willful neglect of duty.2 On November 10, 2010, the district court entered a final order removing Price from office. He was paid no salary between September 29, 2010 and November 10, 2010. Consequently, no retirement contributions were made on his behalf during that period.3

¶ 3 Price filed a petition for alternative writ of mandamus against the Board in the district court on June 19, 2013. He alleged it had failed to perform its duty under 19 O.S. § 153 of paying the salary and benefits to which he was entitled as the Sheriff of Pawnee County when it suspended such benefits on October 29, 2010. He alleged further that the Board's failure damaged him by denying his lawful salary and preventing him from attaining the requisite service credits to vest his retirement benefits under the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS).

¶ 4 The trial court denied his petition on February 25, 2014. He filed his appeal on March 25, 2014. It was assigned to the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA), Oklahoma City, and on April 17, 2015, Division I upheld the trial court's order. We granted certiorari.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 Statutory interpretation is a question of law which is reviewed by a de novo standard of review. Williams v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2009 OK 36, 212 P.3d 484. This standard of review affords this Court with plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented. Frankenberg v. Strickland, 2015 OK 23, 348 P.3d 1076, citing Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Co., 2013 OK 48, 306 P.3d 544.

¶ 6 In a mandamus proceeding, we consider whether a public official can be required to perform an official act which does not involve an exercise of discretion. Thus, before a writ of mandamus may be issued, we must determine whether there is: (1) a clear legal right vested in the petitioner; (2) a refusal to perform a plain legal duty which does not involve the exercise of discretion; and (3) the inadequacy of other relief. Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer Protection Federation of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2013 OK 29, 343 P.3d 1266; Hoskins v. Stevens, 1947 OK 311, 185 P.2d 911, 199 Okla. 297. In this case, we must decide whether the Board had a clear legal duty to pay Price's salary and retirement benefits for the period of suspension.4

POWERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

¶ 7 The statutory powers of the Board of County Commissioners are enumerated at 19 O.S. Supp. 2010, § 339.5 The statute contains no reference to a power given to the Board by the Legislature to suspend the salary of a sheriff. In fact, such action would be inconsistent with Oklahoma law. Under 22 O.S. 2011 § 1194,6 the Board may bring an action for removal of a county officer in the name of the county; however, the "district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction thereof;...." When the complaint for removal is filed, the Board may request the court to suspend the county officer pending the investigation. See 22 O.S. 2011 § 1195(1). It is the court, however, not the Board, which is given the power to do so.7 Moreover, there is no mention in § 1195(1) of a Board's authority to suspend salary or retirement benefits pending the outcome of the trial.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

¶ 8 Price contends he is not subject to suspension of salary and retirement benefits because he was not convicted of a felony, citing 51 O.S. 2011 § 24.1. He argues § 24.1 provides that the conviction of a felony is required in order to suspend a county officer. However, § 24.1 does not so provide. True, it provides for suspension when a felony occurs. However, it does not provide that officers found guilty of lesser criminal offenses cannot be suspended. This contention is rejected.

¶ 9 The parties rely on cases from this Court which appear to require different results. Price contends that Young v. Town of Morris, 1915 OK 1116, 150 P. 684, 47 Okla. 743, entitles him to receive his salary and retirement benefits for the time at issue here, i.e., from the time of suspension to the time of his removal from office. This Court held in Morris that the salary of an officer occupying an official position is attached to the office, not to the performance of the duties of the office. Thus, an absence from the employment does not necessarily suspend the salary and benefits, under Morris. The issue in the case was whether Young, the public official, abandoned his office by being absent from it. It was held that he did not. The Court stated:

Town of Morris, supra, 150 P. at 686.

¶ 10 Conversely, the Board cites Board of County Commissioners of the County of Seminole v. Hutchison, 1965 OK 213, 400 P.2d 176, upon which the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) relied in upholding the trial court in this case. COCA indicates that we reversed in Hutchison, supra, relying on State ex rel. Livingston v. Maxwell, 1960 OK 122, 353 P.2d 690, for the reason that Hutchison could not recover his salary during his suspension period when he performed no official duties of his office and where his suspension was never nullified.8 However, we find Hutchison, supra, to be distinguishable to the present case. In Hutchison, a county attorney was temporarily suspended pending the outcome of his trial, and a new county attorney was appointed. He was found guilty on one charge, but a mistrial was declared as to the other ten charges. Later, after a second petition was filed on charges not previously raised, the judgment against Hutchison originating from the first petition was reversed. He sought to recover his salary from the time of suspension to the expiration of his term, but he was refused by the Board.9 The Board argued that Hutchison could not claim his salary for that period, even though the judgment removing him from office was reversed, because: (1) he had agreed to the temporary suspension; and (2) he was still under suspension when his term of office expired.

¶ 11 In Hutchison, the reversal judgment by this Court did not ipso facto nullify or vacate the separate suspension order. Similarly, it is not contended in Hutchison that the suspension order merged into or was superseded by the removal. This is particularly true because charges were still pending at that time which could ultimately affect Hutchison's suspension and/or removal. In other words, deciding whether Hutchison was entitled to his benefits at that time was premature because additional allegations brought against him had not been adjudicated. It was therefore possible he would not have been removed from office. Therefore, Hutchison does not serve as a resolution for the case before us.

¶ 12 Moreover, 22 O.S. 2011 § 119510 shows legislative intent that the suspension of a county officer's term of office is temporary in nature until a judgment is reached. It provides, in part:

Thus, until a removal occurs, the county officer still holds the office. See 22 O.S. 2011 § 1196:

¶ 13 Considered together, §§ 1195 and 1196 show legislative intent to indicate the temporary nature of a suspension until a judgment is entered requiring the removal of the officer. Until the outcome of the trial is known finding the officer guilty or not guilty of wilful neglect of duty, he or she is not removed from office. When the judgment of removal is filed, it is only then that the office is declared to be vacant. Until then, the de jure11 officer still holds the designated office with all of the benefits and emoluments which are attached to it.12

CONCLUSION

¶ 14 We hold Appellee Board of County Commissioners was without statutory authority to suspend the salary of Price pending the outcome of his trial. Pursuant to 19 O.S. 2011, § 153, the Board had a statutory duty to pay Price's salary through the period of suspension until his removal on November 10, 2010. By suspending Price's salary, resulting in a suspension of his retirement benefits, as well, the Board acted outside its enumerated powers in 19 O.S. Supp. 2010 § 339. The trial court erred when it denied Price's Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandamus.

¶ 15 The "removal" which is described in § 1196 above indicates an action which is final. Price's removal from office took effect on November 10, 2010, at the time the judgment was filed. Therefore, Price's retirement pension vested, entitling him to take the appropriate and necessary steps to apply for retirement benefits associated with the office.

¶ 16 The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated. The order of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant relief in favor of Price.

WATT, EDMONDSON, COLBERT, GURICH, JJ., LUMPKIN, S.J., HUDSON, S.J., concur.

COMBS, V.C.J., KAUGER, TAYLOR, JJ., dissent.

REIF, C.J., WINCHESTER, J., not participating.