Can an Arkansas county stop providing health insurance to the dependents of quorum court members mid-term?

Plain-English summary

Sebastian County's prosecuting attorney, Daniel Shue, asked AG Dustin McDaniel three questions about whether a county can keep providing health insurance to the families of quorum court members. The trigger: a county had been offering dependent coverage to its quorum court members and now realized the practice probably wasn't authorized by state law. The AG concluded: (1) Yes, the county must change course mid-term, because A.C.A. § 14-14-1205 only authorizes insurance "for members of the quorum court," not their dependents (citing Op. 98-091 and the Arkansas Supreme Court's Massongill decision). (2) Equal protection doesn't require treating all elected officials identically because quorum court members aren't similarly situated to other elected officials. (3) The quorum court can remove the family-coverage benefit from all elected officials by budget action, subject to A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(d), which prohibits decreasing a county officer's compensation during a current term.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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.

What the AG concluded

Q1: Is it legal to change the deal mid-term?
Yes, because the change is required to conform to state law. A.C.A. § 14-14-1205(a)(3), added by Act 363 of 1997, says counties "may provide medical insurance coverage for members of the quorum court." A predecessor (Op. 98-091) read that as not covering family members. The Arkansas Supreme Court's Massongill v. County of Scott had already invalidated a county ordinance providing health insurance benefits for quorum court members before the 1997 amendment, on the ground that quorum court compensation was strictly limited to what the statute authorized. The 1997 amendment authorized coverage for the members themselves, but not for their families. A county cannot take action contrary to state law.

Q2: If quorum court family members can't have insurance, must all elected officials be treated the same?
No. There is no requirement in Arkansas law that all elected officials be treated identically. Equal protection only requires similar treatment of similarly situated officials. Quorum court members are not similarly situated to other elected officials, as shown by the Arkansas Constitution's different treatment of their compensation under Amendment 55, § 5 (quorum court per diem is "fixed by law" while county officer compensation is fixed by the quorum court within statutory minimums and maximums). So even if family coverage continues for some county officers, the absence of family coverage for quorum court members raises no equal protection problem.

Q3: Could the quorum court take away county-paid family health insurance from all elected officials?
Generally yes. The quorum court controls county appropriations under A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(a), A.C.A. § 14-14-907, and Ark. Const. art. 16, § 12. It can remove the family-coverage benefit from the annual budget. But the timing constraint in A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(d) applies: "Any decrease in the annual salary or compensation of a county officer shall not become effective until January 1 following a general election held after the decrease has been fixed by the quorum court of the county." Assuming health insurance benefits count as "compensation" under A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(a) (which includes "other remunerations"), removal could not take effect mid-term.

Common questions

Q: Why is quorum court compensation regulated so tightly?
Quorum court members are part-time legislative officials with statewide compensation rules. Amendment 55 reserves their per diem to the legislature ("fixed by law"), preventing local counties from bidding up their own pay. The statutory framework in A.C.A. § 14-14-1205 supplements that by listing exactly what additional remuneration is allowed.

Q: What did Massongill v. County of Scott actually hold?
Before 1997, A.C.A. § 14-14-1205 had no language authorizing health insurance for quorum court members at all. Scott County passed an ordinance providing it anyway. The Arkansas Supreme Court struck the ordinance down because county personnel-procedure statutes "specifically restrict[ed] or limit[ed] compensation and expenses to be provided quorum court members" to what § 14-14-1205 expressly authorized. The legislature responded with Act 363 of 1997, which added subsection (a)(3) to allow coverage "for members."

Q: Can the county fix this by changing the language to "members and their families"?
No, not by ordinance. The county is bound by the state statute. A change would have to come from the General Assembly.

Q: What about elected county officers (sheriff, county judge, treasurer, etc.)? Can they have family coverage?
The opinion doesn't directly answer that, but it implies their authorizing statutes are different. The question for any other elected officer is whether the statute governing that office authorizes family coverage. The AG didn't survey those statutes.

Q: When can the quorum court actually remove the benefit?
Effective no earlier than January 1 following the next general election after the decrease is voted, assuming health insurance counts as "compensation" (which the AG treated as likely).

Background and statutory framework

The Arkansas Constitution treats quorum court members differently from other elected county officers. Amendment 55, § 5 says quorum court per diem is "fixed by law," meaning by the General Assembly, while county officer compensation is "fixed by the Quorum Court within a minimum and maximum to be determined by law." Act 742 of 1977, the enabling legislation for Amendment 55, reflects this same division. The compensation statute, A.C.A. § 14-14-1205, lists the precise additional payments and benefits the legislature has authorized for quorum court members. The Arkansas Supreme Court has read this list strictly: if it is not on the list, the county cannot provide it.

The 1997 statutory authorization for member health insurance came after Massongill specifically to overrule that case's holding on insurance for the members themselves. The legislature did not extend the authorization to dependents.

Citations

Statutes and constitution

• A.C.A. § 14-14-1205 (compensation and expenses of quorum court members; subsection (a)(3) authorizes medical insurance for members)
• A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(a) (all compensation must be specifically appropriated)
• A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(d) (prohibition on decreasing county officer compensation during current term)
• A.C.A. § 14-14-805(13) (county powers)
• A.C.A. § 14-14-907(a)(1) (appropriation ordinance defined)
• A.C.A. § 14-14-907(a)(3)(B) (specific appropriations in annual budget)
• Ark. Const. amend. 55 (county government)
• Ark. Const. art. 16, § 12 (no money out of treasury without appropriation)

Cases

• Massongill v. County of Scott, 329 Ark. 98, 947 S.W.2d 749 (1997) (Arkansas Supreme Court)
• Mackey v. McDonald, 255 Ark. 978, 501 S.W.2d 726 (1974) (Arkansas Supreme Court)
• Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 439 (1985) (U.S. Supreme Court)
• Waller v. Banks, 2013 Ark. 399 (Arkansas Supreme Court)

Prior AG opinions referenced

• Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 98-091, 2003-059

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUSTIN McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2013-148

March 18, 2014

The Honorable Daniel Shue
Prosecuting Attorney
Twelfth Judicial District
Sebastian County Courts Building
901 South B Street, Suite 209
Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901

Dear Mr. Shue:

You have requested my opinion on the following questions concerning county-funded health insurance coverage for quorum court members:

1. Is it legal to change in midstream what was presented to Quorum Court members when they ran for office they were offered insurance with dependent coverage as compensation for the job?

2. If all elected officials are to be treated equally and if the Quorum Court family members are not allowed to have insurance, then is any other elected official allowed to have partially County-funded health insurance coverage for their families?

3. Could the Quorum Court take away from all elected officials the benefit of County-paid health insurance for family members?

RESPONSE

In my opinion, the answer to your first question is "yes." With regard to your second question, there is no requirement in law that all elected officials be treated equally. More specific to your question, because quorum court members are not similarly situated with all other elected officials, the provision or lack of provision of dependent coverage for the quorum court has no bearing on the question whether such coverage should be extended to other officials. The answer to your third question is generally "yes," in my opinion.

Question 1 - Is it legal to change in midstream what was presented to Quorum Court members when they ran for office they were offered insurance with dependent coverage as compensation for the job?

One of my predecessors addressed the question whether counties may provide health insurance coverage to the families of quorum court members pursuant to A.C.A. § 14-14-1205, which states in relevant part:

In addition to any other compensation expense reimbursement or expense allowances provided members of the quorum court, counties may provide medical insurance coverage for members of the quorum court.

My predecessor concluded that the answer was "no," a county could not offer dependent coverage because the statute only authorizes coverage "for members of the quorum court."

I agree with this conclusion. As my predecessor explained, subsection (a)(3) was added to A.C.A. § 14-14-1205 by Act 363 of 1997. Prior to this enactment, the Arkansas Supreme Court in Massongill v. County of Scott invalidated a county ordinance that provided health insurance benefits for quorum court members:

The court held that the subchapter of the Arkansas Code dealing with county personnel procedures "specifically restricts or limits compensation and expenses to be provided quorum court members to that which is provided in § 14-14-1205 and other statutes in subchapter 12." [Citation omitted.] Because the health insurance coverage was a county expense not specified under § 14-14-1205, it was deemed invalid.

The 1997 legislation was thus enacted in order to authorize the provision of health insurance benefits for members of the quorum court. In my opinion, this cannot be interpreted to include quorum court members' dependents.

In response to your particular question, therefore, the "change in midstream" would be a necessary change in order to conform to state law. Counties of course cannot take action that is contrary to state law.

Question 2 - If all elected officials are to be treated equally and if the Quorum Court family members are not allowed to have insurance, then is any other elected official allowed to have partially County-funded health insurance coverage for their families?

There is no requirement in law that all elected officials be treated equally. A concern about equal treatment can implicate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, but the equal protection doctrine essentially directs that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.

Quorum court members are not similarly situated with all other elected officials. This is evidenced, in part, by the Arkansas Constitution's different treatment of quorum court members for purposes of compensation. Under Amendment 55, quorum court members' "per diem" compensation is to be "fixed by law" (i.e., established by the General Assembly), whereas "[c]ompensation of each county officer" is to be "fixed by the Quorum Court within a minimum and maximum to be determined by law." The enabling legislation for Amendment 55 (Act 742 of 1977) also reflects a differentiation between county officers and quorum court members for purposes of some of its provisions.

Because quorum court members are not similarly situated with all other elected officials, the provision or lack of provision of dependent coverage for the quorum court has no bearing on the decision whether to extent such coverage to other officials.

Question 3 - Could the Quorum Court take away from all elected officials the benefit of County-paid health insurance for family members?

Generally, "yes," given the quorum court's power and duty respecting county appropriations. All allowances or expenses require a "specific appropriation":

All compensation, including salary, hourly compensation, expense allowances, training expenses, and other remunerations, allowed to any county or district officer or employee thereof shall be made only on specific appropriation by the quorum court of the county.

Pursuant to standard operating procedure, the quorum court may enact specific appropriations through the annual budget:

Appropriation measures enacted by a quorum court shall include the following categories of financial management:

The enactment of specific appropriations by which a specified sum has been set apart in the treasury and devoted to the payment of a particular demand. Specific appropriations may be enacted through the adoption of an annual budget, a statement of estimated receipts and expenditures, in a manner prescribed by law.

As a general matter, therefore, the quorum court may decide to remove the referenced health insurance benefit from the annual budget. Consideration must be given, however, to the timing of such action in light of the prohibition against decreasing county officers' compensation during a current term:

Any decrease in the annual salary or compensation of a county officer shall not become effective until January 1 following a general election held after the decrease has been fixed by the quorum court of the county.

Assuming that the health insurance benefit would be deemed part of the officers' "compensation" for purposes of this provision, then its removal could not be effective until after the next general election.

Deputy Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Attorney General

DM:EAW/cyh