search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
AAC


SEEMS TO ME... Change


records and the help of the AOC to get their original num- bers changed so the local entities are getting credit for the proper funds each month. Te intent of Act 1256 of 1995 and amending legislation since was at least four-fold: 1. To eliminate the current system of collecting and assess- ing a large number of individual courts costs and filing fees. Tere were many separate court costs assessed — 25 cents for this; 50 cents for that; $1 for another; $3 for this; $10 for another; etc. Records were kept of each of those individual courts costs by the appropriate clerk. Tey were remitted to the city or county treasurer on a monthly basis, and the treasurer made proper disposi- tion of the funds, either by crediting the funds to the proper local fund or sending the funds to the proper state agency. Tere were separate court costs for any number of things, such as County Law Library; City At- torney Fees; Prosecuting Attorney Fees; Public Defender Investigator; Indigent Defense; County Jail Revenue Bond; Policeman’s Pension; Municipal Judge and Clerk Retirement; DWI court cost; Intoxication Detection Equipment; Drug Abuse Fund; Victim Witness; Alco- hol Treatment Program; etc. And listen to this — filing fees in the various courts varied from county to county. I know this sounds complicated, but that’s what we were accustomed to. Change is difficult for most, and the “new system” was totally different.


2. To replace the old system with a “uniform cost and fee schedule” to be applied statewide. Act 1256 established a uniform court cost for the various courts and types of cases and a uniform filing fee for the various divisions of the courts. Of course, the original code has been amended several times since 1995, and the court cost and filing fee amounts have changed.


3. To prohibit the implementation of new costs and fees for specific programs in the future. Before Act 1256, local governments had the ability to, by ordinance, as- sess new court costs and change filing fees. No longer. One of the reasons for Act 1256 was to make costs uniform across the state and create more equity in the judicial services across the state. With the passage of Act 1256 of 1995 and follow-up legislation in 1997, dozens of codes or parts of codes were repealed.


4. To create a reporting system to allow the General Assembly to obtain accurate data to determine the cost to the state for the funding of the judicial system. What the state found out, although for the most part they have not acknowledged it, is that the counties of Arkansas are subsidizing the cost of the state court


18 Continued From Page 17 <<<


system. In 2014 counties retained $18.4 million in revenue for the courts, basically from our share of the Administration of Justice Fund and circuit court fines, but we expended $64.1 million. Tat means the state court system cost county government $45.7 million in general funds not raised through the court system.


Talk about getting in “high gear.” Tis monumental change in law had an emergency clause, and most of it went into ef- fect on July 1, 1995. So the rush was on to get everything in place. Te bill was signed and became Act 1256 on April 13, 1995. Tere were 2 ½ months until implementation. County clerks, circuit clerks, district court clerks, county treasurers and city treasurers had to become aware of the paradigm shift in court operations almost overnight. And calculations for city and county shares had to be made quickly. I believe that’s why there has continued to be a lot of misunderstanding and problems, even though this system has now been in place for 25 years. Too many that were in office when it started never quite grasped the new law and how it worked. Be thankful if you followed officials in your county and cities that under- stood and implemented it correctly. Pursuant to Act 1256 of 1995 Administration of Justice


Funds were established at the state, county and municipal levels. Tese funds were established on the books of each entity to credit their share of uniform court costs and filing fees to fund or help fund the programs that each remained responsible for. Te uniform filing fees and court costs were established in Act 1256 for the various divisions of the court system. Te fees were the same all over the state, unlike under the old system. Te fees set were high enough to keep almost all entities whole and provide excess for the state Administra- tion of Justice Fund. However, the new fees set were below the fees of a few court systems. How did each city and county know what share of the fees and costs to keep locally and what share to remit to the state? Te Act established a process to determine the local govern- ment’s share. Of course, the remaining amount was to be remit- ted to the State Administration of Justice Fund so the state could continue to fund the agencies or programs that we had previ- ously been remitting from the local level either to an agency or program directly from the counties and municipalities. Since the inception of Act 1256, when there were only


15 programs or agencies funded by the state share. Tere are now 25 agencies or programs funded, at least in part, through the State Administration of Justice Fund. Te biggies are the Public Defender Commission; Court Reporter Fund; Trial Court Administrator Fund; Dependency-Neglect Rep- resentation through AOC; Crime Victims/Reparations Fund; Legal Education — law schools at the University of Arkansas


COUNTY LINES, SUMMER 2020


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