Why did the Arkansas AG condition approval of a health department interlocal agreement amendment?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2013. Ask about yours and see what current Arkansas law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
The Arkansas Attorney General reviewed an amendment to an interlocal agreement between the Arkansas Department of Human Services’ Division of Medical Services and the Shelby County Health Department. The office had approved the original agreement in an earlier opinion. It approved this amendment subject to correction of a formal ambiguity in the submitted text.
Paragraph 3 said it deleted and replaced Clause V.E., yet the language described as a replacement repeated Clause V.E. word for word. The AG read the submission as apparently intending to supplement the existing clause through paragraphs 4 and 5, and assumed the requester would resolve the discrepancy. The opinion did not describe those paragraphs’ substantive terms.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Was the interlocal amendment approved as submitted?
A: The AG approved it subject to resolving the discrepancy in the amendment’s wording. The response did not give unconditional approval.
Q: What was wrong with Paragraph 3?
A: It said Clause V.E. was deleted and replaced, but the alleged replacement matched the old clause verbatim. The AG thought the drafters may have intended paragraphs 4 and 5 to supplement that clause.
Q: Did the opinion decide the merits of the prenatal-care program?
A: No. The opinion addressed approval of the agreement amendment and identified a drafting ambiguity; it did not evaluate the program itself.
Background and statutory framework
The request invoked the Interlocal Cooperation Act. The AG applied the standard from its earlier approval of the unamended agreement and focused this response on the amendment’s internal wording. The API’s short subject line calls one Arkansas party the Department of Health; the signed opinion text calls it the Department of Human Services’ Division of Medical Services. This page follows the signed opinion.
Citations and references
- The opinion identified the Interlocal Cooperation Act as A.C.A. § 25-20-101 et seq.
- It referred to its earlier approval as Opinion No. 2012-036.
Source
Original opinion text
STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DusTIn McCDANIEL
Opinion No. 2013-004
January 22, 2013
Deborah Beard, Account Planner
Communications Group
400 West Capitol, Suite 1391
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Ms. Beard:
You have requested approval, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act (A.C.A.
§ 25-20-101 et seqg.), of an amendment (the “Amendment’) to an interlocal agreement between the Arkansas Department of Human Services -- Division of Medical Services and the Shelby County Health Department. In Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-036, this office approved the unamended interlocal agreement as submitted.
Applying the standard set forth in my previous opinion, I hereby approve the Amendment, subject to the condition you resolve the formal ambiguity in your submission discussed immediately below. Paragraph 3 of the Amendment is prefaced by the following declaration: “Clause V.E. is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language[.]’” The alleged replacement language set forth in Paragraph 3, however, tracks verbatim the language it purports to replace. It appears to be the case that, rather than replacing the language of Clause V.E., the Amendment is designed to supplement it with the provisions set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Amendment. Resolving this ambiguity should be a simple matter, which I will assume you will undertake forthwith.
323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 * LiTTLE Rock, ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 * Fax (501) 682-8084 INTERNET WEBSITE * http://www.ag.state.ar.us/
Ms. Deborah Beard, Account Planner
Communications Group
Opinion No. 2013-004
Page 2
Assistant Attorney General Jack Druff prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve. Sincerely,
peo lG ~
DUSTIN McDANIEL
Attorney General
DM/JHD:cyh
What does Arkansas law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2013. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace