AAC
SEEMS TO ME... Change
percentage varied across the state. In my home county, for instance, the percentage was 26 percent city and 74 percent county in district court. Except for the numerous district court fees or fines that
are listed on the Miscellaneous Fee/Fine Collection Report that the district court clerk should remit directly to the State Administration of Justice Fund, the district court clerk is to remit the district court uniform filing fees/costs to the vari- ous city treasurers that are a part of the district court. Te city treasurer is to forward the county share percentage to the county treasurer for credit to the County Administration of Justice Fund; retain the city share in the City Administration of Justice Fund; and remit the remainder to the State Admin- istration of Justice Fund. I need to remind everyone that in an amendment to this legislation in 1997, counties gave up 85 percent of their pub- lic defender base year revenue effective Jan. 1, 1998, when the state made public defenders state employees and started paying their salary. Counties retained only 15 percent of that base-year public defender revenue to help pay for the office operations of the public defender. Te County Administration of Justice Fund must be used to defray a part of the expense of the administration of justice in the county. It is from this fund that a county must con- tinue to finance certain agencies or programs that were being funded locally prior to Act 1256 of 1995 in accordance with § 16-10-307. Tey are: 1. Prosecuting Attorney Fund [a department of County General in many counties];
2. Prosecutor’s Victim-Witness Program; 3. Public Defender/Indigent Defense/Public Defender Investigator Fund [should all be one fund called Public Defender Fund];
4. County Law Library; 5. County Jail Fund; and 6. Intoxication Detection Equipment Fund. Tose six programs or departments must continue to be funded by a county, if a county was funding them in 1994, “at a funding level no less than they were funded in 1994.” Any increase in Administration of Justice Funding through Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA) does not necessarily have to follow the programs on a prorated basis. Te County Administration of Justice funding originally was written to include a COLA each year based on the Con- sumer Price Index (CPI). We got that increase through 2001, although some years it was very small. Ten the COLA was taken away, and we were frozen at the 2001 level for 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. In 2005 we got the COLA reinstated
20 Continued From Page 19 <<<
starting in 2006. And then the State Administration of Justice Fund got into trouble financially, and the COLA section was changed in 2013 legislation so that any annual adjustment in the amount retained locally is “based upon the lesser of the average percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the two years immediately preceding or the percentage rate of increase in collections of the State Administration of Justice Fund for the two years immediately preceding.” Tat change was demanded by the Gov. Mike Beebe administration to protect the state. If there’s no growth or less growth in the State Administration of Justice Fund than the national CPI, cit- ies and counties get no increase. Since that legislative change, counties received a zero increase in 2014; a 1.8 percent increase in 2015; and a zero increase for 2016 through 2020. Act 1256 of 1995 surely did change the way the Arkansas
court system and ancillary programs or agencies were funded. It was definitely a sea change to the way we had always done it. So for those of you who were not around in 1995 and won- dered how and why the Administration of Justice Fund works like it does, now you know. Too bad someone didn’t warn us. Tis was one of those things that if we lived in a perfect world and everyone involved had perfect understanding of what was happening, it could have worked well. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and not everyone understood what was happening with this legislation. Tis was one of those occasions where “old dogs” were learning “new tricks” — and most of the time old dogs don’t learn new tricks, or at least not easily. It was too much at once for many — definitely a broad transformation. It was one of those things that just couldn’t be done in the minds of many elected officials. But it was — even if imperfectly. Our old disorganized system has been replaced by our new disorganized system, although I must admit it is a better system. If your Administration of Justice Fund doesn’t operate like
I’ve explained it, I’m not telling you to change. I have simply explained it as it was enacted and intended. I don’t want you talking about me like Calvin Coolidge did about Herbert Hoover. Coolidge served the rest of Warren Harding’s presiden- tial term after he died and was elected to a term of his own. He declined to run for his second full term. Hoover, who had served as Secretary of Commerce under both Harding and Coolidge, succeeded Coolidge. Coolidge said of Hoover, “Tat man has offered me unsolicited advice for six years, all of it bad.” At times extreme change is needed. Tis was probably one of those times. I don’t want to be accused of giving unso- licited advice, but if you’re still struggling with the Admin- istration of Justice Fund after all these years, give me a call. Maybe this old dog can help you learn a new trick.
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
