AAC F A M I L Y & F R I E N D S
» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
AG Opinions: From equipment leases to bonus compensation
AG OPINION NO. 2016-074 Te Attorney General answered a fre- quently asked question: “Does a county have to bid to lease equipment under ACA § 14-22-101 or otherwise?” An- swer: No. Te AG made clear that a sim- ple equipment rental or lease (whereby the county does not acquire an owner- ship interest) does not require a bid. Te AG stated that the law was very clear and unambiguous. It is unlawful for a county to make purchases in excess of $20,000 unless the methods described under the county purchasing law are fol- lowed unless there is an exception under ACA § 14-22-106. A “purchase” is de- fined as not only an outright purchase of a commodity, but also the acquisition of a commodity under a rental-purchase agreement, a lease-purchase agreement or any other agreements where the coun- ty has the option to buy a commodity and apply the rental payments to the purchase price. Te AG concluded that true leases are not subject to the formal county bidding process. Tis conclusion is drawn from the explicit language and definitions of the statutes.
AG OPINION NO. 2016-068 Te AG determined that ACA § 12- 18-104 prohibits the release of the entire record in a child maltreatment case un- der the Arkansas Freedom of Informa- tion Act (FOIA). Te AG further deter- mined that prohibition also extends to other agencies, like sheriffs’ and local law enforcement agencies not explicitly listed under ACA § 12-18-104. Te AG
We want your news
12
noted that the sheriffs’ offices and local law enforcement agencies are included under the provision as “other agencies” that investigate crimes and conduct child maltreatment investigations. Te FOIA exempts from disclosure of public records afforded exemption under other statutory provisions. Te AG says the exemption extends to these protected investigative records even if filed with circuit clerk.
AG OPINION NO. 2016-072 Te AG determined that Amendment 55 allows for the quorum court to ap- propriate a bonus or lump sum pay- ment to county employees and officials. Amendment 55 expressly provides
peace are paid on the basis of per diem compensation and a bonus or lump sum payment for justices of the peace
is not
permitted un- der the law.
AG Opinions
Mark Whitmore AAC Chief Counsel
AG OPINION NO. 2016-040 Te AG made clear that counties can
a
county quorum court the duty to fix the compensation of county employees and officials. In addition to the broad power under the Arkansas Constitution, ACA § 14-14-1206(a) expressly references compensation by lump sum payment. Te AG noted, however, it is clear the salary of county official may not exceed the maximums prescribed by law, and a bonus or lump sum payment might be restricted to the maximum under the law. Te AG also noted that a bonus or lump sum payment may be based upon longevity or years of service. However, the provisions of ACA § 14-14-1203(d) that limit the timing for reduction of a county official’s salary would need to be taken into account for the longevity pay type of bonus for county officials. Fi- nally, the AG noted that justices of the
receive reimbursement for payments dis- bursed to election commissioners on a per-public-meeting basis only. Te AG explained that ACA § 7-4-111(b) and the Rules for Reimbursement adopted by the State Board of Election of Com- mission (SEBC) limits the reimburse- ment to the county to payments for participation by county election com- missioners in meetings. Te law also sets a minimum and maximum reimburse- ment sum per meeting and limits the number of meetings for state-funded elections subject to reimbursement. Te AG noted that a county will not receive reimbursement for tasks performed by an election commissioner outside of the context of a meeting. Te AG also de- termined that there is no prohibition in law on counties in providing reasonable compensation to election commission- ers for their performance of necessary tasks, if any, that cannot or cannot prac- ticably be accomplished in the context of a meeting.
Did an aspect of county government “make news” recently in your county? Did
any of your county officials or staff get an award, appointment or pat on the back? Please let us know about it for the next edition of County Lines magazine. You can write up a couple of paragraphs about it, or if something ran in your local paper, call and ask them to forward the story to us. We encourage you or your newspaper to attach a good quality photo, too: e-mail
csmith@arcounties.org.
COUNTY LINES, FALL 2016
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60