AAC F A M I L Y & F R I E N D S
» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
AG Opinions: County library employees, evaluation records
AG OPINION NO. 2016-125 Te Attorney General determined that employees of a particular county library are “county employees” for the purposes of the Arkansas Public Em- ployee Retirement System (APERS). Because employees of the county li- brary were subject to the control of the county in terms of remuneration, the library employees were entitled to APERS contributions and other ben- efits of county employees under Ark. Code Ann. § 24-4-101. In this deter- mination, the AG emphasized that the APERS board of trustees would have the final power to decide the question in a case of doubt. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 24-4-101(14)(A), county em- ployees are “all employees whose com- pensations are payable, either directly or indirectly, by county participating public employers.” Further, “a ‘coun- ty’ may be any county in Arkansas, ‘includ[ing] all ... boards ... that are duly constituted agencies of the coun- ty.’” Tus, in this instance, the county library board fell within this defini- tion, making its employees eligible for APERS contribution by the county.
AG OPINION NO. 2017-004 Te AG considered the following question: Does the county judge, or instead, the quorum court, have the authority to assign proposed ordi- nances among existing committees? Te AG determined that this power lies exclusively with the quorum court. Under both Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 1(a) and Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14- 801(a), the quorum court is desig- nated as the county’s local legislative
authority. Te county judge may ap- point the members of quorum court committees and limit the size of those committees; however, “assigning pro- posed ordinances to specific existing committees falls within the quorum- court’s managerial and procedural authorities, if not its local legisla- tive powers.” Furthermore, quorum courts are not prohibited from assign- ing ordinances to committees.
AG OPINION NO. 2016-139 Te AG made clear that the “park- ing lot exception” under Act 1078 of 2015 includes county parking lots. Tis exception allows concealed-carry licensees to leave his or her concealed handgun in his or her “locked and un- attended motor vehicle” in a “publicly owned and maintained parking lot.” Tis act amended statutes relating to both the concealed handgun licens- ing law and criminal weapons statutes to expand exceptions. Under this act, a concealed-carry licensee may leave his or her concealed handgun hidden from view in a locked and unattended vehicle in a publically owned parking lot — including county-owned park- ing lots — “without fear of either pros- ecution or license revocation.”
AG OPINION NO. 2016-137 While evaluating whether an em-
ployee’s employee evaluation records were properly disclosed in response to a request under the Arkansas Free- dom of Information Act (FOIA), the Attorney General determined that the records were properly disclosed. Under FOIA, a document is subject to disclosure if the request is directed
AG Opinions
to an entity subject to the act, the r equested document is a public re- cord, and no e xc ept ions allow the document to be with- held. Two e xc ept ions may prevent a request from being granted — personnel records and em- ployee evaluation or job performance records. In this case, the records fell within the employee evaluation re- cords exception. Tis exception refers to any records created by or at the be- hest of the employer in order to evalu- ate the employee and that detail the employee’s performance on the job. Additionally, employee evaluation or job performance records may only be released if all of the following ele- ments are met: (1) the employee was suspended or terminated, (2) there has been a final administrative resolu- tion of the proceeding, (3) these re- cords formed a basis for the decision in this proceeding, and (4) the public has a compelling interest in the dis- closure of the records in question. Te primary purpose of this excep- tion is to preserve the confidentiality of the formal job-evaluation process to promote honest exchanges in em- ployment relationships. Because these conditions were satisfied in this case, an employee’s “Notice of Disciplin- ary Action Form” and accompanying memorandum were properly released.
Mark Whitmore AAC Chief Counsel
www.arcounties.org 12 COUNTY LINES, SPRING 2017
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
