Can an Arkansas county use excess law library funds to finish out courthouse space for the juvenile court?

Plain-English summary

Representative John Payton asked whether Cleburne County's Law Library Board could contribute about $25,000 from its library fund to complete unused space in a new court building for the juvenile court judge and staff. The board reportedly held more than $90,000, and the proposed work would add walls, ceilings, and utilities.

The AG said the project qualified as a purpose for improving the administration of justice under A.C.A. § 16-23-102. He did not decide whether the money was truly “excess” or whether the proposed use was “necessary.” Both were factual conditions that he assumed for his legal analysis.

The statute permits the board to spend library funds beyond those needed for operation and maintenance on another purpose necessary to improve county administration of justice. The AG read “other purpose” to mean a use outside library operation and maintenance, subject to the statute's two additional conditions. He reasoned that related library legislation permits construction and renovation of library facilities, and a county-services statute treats courthouse space as part of the administration of justice. That supported including the proposed juvenile-court space within the permitted kind of purpose.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Check current law and the facts of a proposed expenditure before relying on it.

Common questions

Did the AG approve spending this particular $25,000?
He approved the proposed kind of use under the administration-of-justice language. He did not determine whether the identified funds were excess or the work necessary. Both conditions remained to be established locally.

What expenses did the project cover?
The request described finishing unused court-building space with walls, ceilings, and utilities to house a juvenile court judge and two or three staff members who then worked elsewhere in the county.

Why does courthouse space count as administration of justice?
The AG relied on related statutes: library funds may be used for constructing and renovating library facilities, and county government must provide for justice through its courts. He noted that the latter obligation had been read to include courthouse space.

Who must decide whether funds are excess and the project necessary?
The opinion did not resolve those factual questions. It treated them as conditions that had to be met before the board could rely on the legal conclusion.

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. 2014-016

April 2, 2014

The Honorable John Payton
State Representative
Post Office Box 181
Wilburn, Arkansas 72179-0181

Dear Representative Payton:

You have requested my opinion regarding A.C.A. § 16-23-102, which in relevant part addresses the expenditure of excess county law library funds. You have asked "whether an expenditure from the County Law Library Fund to finish space in the new Cleburne County Court Building is a lawful expenditure of funds 'necessary for improvement in the administration of justice in the county' pursuant to A.C.A. § 16-23-102." As background for this question, you state:

The Cleburne County Law Library Board, established pursuant to A.C.A. § 16-23-102, (hereinafter the "Board") has accumulated some $90,000 plus in the County Law Library Fund. The Board has tentatively agreed to contribute $25,000 to the County General Fund for the purpose of completing an unfinished portion of the Court Building in order to house juvenile court staff. The total proposed project will cost approximately $50,000 and will take unfinished, unused space and put up walls, ceilings and utilities so that it may be occupied by the current Juvenile Court Judge and 2-3 staff members. These court personnel are presently housed elsewhere in the County several blocks away from the Court Building where court is conducted. It would be advantageous to have the court personnel in the Court Building for convenient access to the courtroom.

RESPONSE

Resolution of this question turns, as an initial matter, on whether the funds to be devoted to the project are "excess" and "necessary" for the stated purpose. Because these criteria essentially entail factual determinations outside the scope of this opinion, I will assume they are met for purposes of your question. The remaining issue is a legal one — whether the expenditure of law library funds to finish space in the court building for housing juvenile court staff is a purpose for "improvement in the administration of justice in the county." The answer to that question is "yes," in my opinion.

DISCUSSION

The controlling statute, A.C.A. § 16-23-102, states in relevant part:

Any excess funds in the county law library book fund not needed for the operation and maintenance of the county law library may be expended by the board for any other purpose necessary for improvement in the administration of justice in the county.

In considering this subsection, we are guided by well-established principles of statutory interpretation:

The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Weiss v. McFadden, 353 Ark. 868, 120 S.W.3d 545 (2003). We construe the statute so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant; and meaning and effect are given to every word in the statute if possible. Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 342 Ark. 591, 29 S.W.3d 730 (2000). When the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. Weiss v. McFadden, supra. When the meaning is not clear, we look to the language of the statute, the subject matter, the object to be accomplished, the purpose to be served, the remedy provided, the legislative history, and other appropriate means that shed light on the subject. Id.

Guided by these principles, I interpret the words "any other purpose" under subsection 16-23-102(c)(2) just as they read to mean a purpose other than "operation and maintenance of the county law library." The "purpose" is qualified, however, by the requirement that it be one "necessary for improvement in the administration of justice in the county." Read as a whole, therefore, the statute contains three predicates for the redirection of funds from law library operation and maintenance, which I will identify by question:

1. Are there "excess funds?"
2. Is the "other purpose" a "necessary" one?
3. Is the "other purpose" one for "improvement in the administration of justice?"

The first two criteria for assessing the legality of the proposed expenditure require factual analyses that I am neither equipped nor authorized to undertake in the context of this opinion. The inquiry thus focuses on the third element. The phrase "administration of justice" is not defined. This gives rise, in my opinion, to some uncertainty as to the "other purposes" covered by the statute. Of course, the basic rule of statutory construction to which all other interpretive guides must yield is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. To reiterate in this regard, the Arkansas Supreme Court looks to appropriate sources that clarify the matter, including the language of the statute and its object and purpose, as well as other statutes relating to the same subject matter. Additionally, the rules of statutory construction require that undefined terms be placed beside other statutes relevant to the subject and given a meaning and effect derived from the combined whole.

The application of these principles leads me to conclude that finishing out space in a courthouse to be occupied by juvenile court staff is a lawful purpose under A.C.A. § 16-23-102(c)(2). This conclusion finds initial support in subsection 16-23-101, which authorizes the use of law library funds for "for any purpose relating to the establishment, maintenance, and operation of a county law library, including construction, renovation, and maintenance of facilities to house such libraries." It seems evident from this provision that the phrase "improvement in the administration of justice" in section 16-23-102 should be read to include the expense of facilities construction and renovation.

This reading is buttressed, moreover, by A.C.A. § 14-14-802, a part of the County Code that includes the "administration of justice" among the "necessary services" that must be provided by the county:

A county government, acting through the county quorum court, shall provide, through ordinance, for the following necessary services for its citizens:

(1) The administration of justice through the several courts of record of the county[.]

This statute does not define "administration of justice" services; but as interpreted by the Arkansas Supreme Court, this language plainly includes "the costs of courthouse space." If faced with the question, the court in my opinion would say the same of the phrase "improvement in the administration of justice in the county" under A.C.A. § 16-23-102(c)(2). When placed beside A.C.A. § 14-14-802(a)(1), this language can be understood as recognizing the county's obligation to provide for the administration of justice. I believe it reasonably follows that the proposed improvements to the courthouse to support the operation of the juvenile court constitute an administration-of-justice purpose for which excess county law library funds may be expended.

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

Sincerely,

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Attorney General

DM:EAW/cyh