Does Act 1256 of 1995 (the uniform court costs and filing fees act) tell an Arkansas city how to pay its city attorney?

Plain-English summary

Senator Jimmy Hickey asked on behalf of Ashdown's mayor and council whether Act 1256 of 1995 told a first-class city how to pay its city attorney. The AG's strict answer was no: the act established uniform court costs and filing fees but did not directly address city attorney compensation.

He identified a possible connection. Act 1256 required cities to continue financing municipal-level programs and agencies previously funded in whole or in part by court costs and filing fees. At the time the act passed, state law allowed city attorneys to recover fees for prosecution work; the AG said those fees were presumably paid from criminal-case court costs. He thought such fees might fall within the administration-of-justice funding rule, though he said that was “not entirely clear.”

The AG did not decide what any particular city attorney was owed or whether a particular city's funding history met the rule. City officials with the relevant local facts had to address that question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Check current court-finance and city-attorney compensation law, along with the city's records, before applying it.

Common questions

Does Act 1256 set a city attorney's salary?
No. The AG said it did not directly address city attorney compensation.

Could prosecution fees still matter under the act? Possibly. The AG observed that city attorneys could collect prosecution fees when Act 1256 passed and those fees were presumably paid from court costs. He said the act's continued-funding rule might provide direction if such fees formed part of a city's arrangement.

Did the AG decide those fees definitely qualify for continued funding? No. He called the connection “not entirely clear” and said only that the act “may indeed provide direction.” The local funding facts were unavailable to him.

Who must determine the result for a particular city attorney? The AG directed the issue to city officials able to review the specific compensation arrangement and surrounding facts.

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. 2014-036
May 20, 2014

The Honorable Jimmy Hickey Jr.
State Senator
1600 Arkansas Boulevard, Suite 106
Texarkana, Arkansas 71854

Dear Senator Hickey:

You have requested my opinion, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashdown, Arkansas, on the following question concerning a city attorney's compensation:

Does Act 1256 [of 1995] provide any guidelines, instructions, mandates, policy or direction to a city of the First Class regarding the compensation of the city attorney, if so, how and to what extent?

RESPONSE

Having reviewed Act 1256 of 1995, I conclude that the answer to the first part of this question is, strictly speaking, "no," inasmuch as this act does not directly address the matter of a city attorney's compensation. This would appear to render moot the second part of the question. As explained further below, however, this should not be taken to suggest that a city is necessarily prohibited from applying any income derived from costs and fees [pursuant to Act 1256 of 1995] to a city attorney's compensation. I note, for instance, that at the time of Act 1256's enactment, city attorneys were authorized by state law to recover fees incurred in prosecutions. As also explained below, this could bear on your question as to any "direction" Act 1256 may provide regarding a city attorney's compensation. I lack sufficient information to opine further in this respect, however. And I am unable, in any event, to determine what compensation a particular city attorney might be entitled to. A matter of this sort must be directed to those officials for the city who are in a position to assess the underlying issues based upon the particular surrounding facts and circumstances.

DISCUSSION

Act 1256 of 1995 created a system of uniform filing fees and court costs and prohibited the assessment or collection of additional costs and fees "unless specifically provided by state law." It also created a "county administration of justice fund" in each county and a "city administration of justice fund" in towns or cities operating the former "police, city, or municipal," now "district," court. Because your question pertains to a city, I will focus on that part of Act 1256 concerning a "city administration of justice fund."

This fund is to be used to defray expenses incurred in the administration of justice in the city. The city is required to continue to finance the following programs and agencies funded at the time of passage of Act 1256 of 1995:

(1) The municipal court judge and clerk retirement fund for disbursement as otherwise provided by law; (2) The police and fire pension fund; (3) The intoxication detection equipment fund; (4) All municipal-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in part by court costs and filing fees assessed and collected by the district court, notwithstanding the repeal by this act of laws authorizing the collection of court costs and filing fees; and (5) All county-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in part by court costs and filing fees assessed and collected by the district court, notwithstanding the repeal by this act of laws authorizing the collection of court costs and filing fees and the disbursement of all or a part thereof to the county.

As you can see from subsection 16-10-308(b)(4), set out above, Act 1256 required the continued funding of "municipal-level programs and agencies" funded by court costs and filing fees at the time of the act's passage. This provision may be relevant to your question concerning a city attorney's compensation. The referenced "programs" and "agencies" are not specifically defined, presumably because they may vary from city to city. But they can be identified by their source of funding ("court costs and filing fees") and the purpose served ("administration of justice"). I note in this regard that when Act 1256 was enacted, city attorneys were authorized, when carrying out their prosecutorial duties, to collect the fees usually allowed prosecuting attorneys. These fees were presumably paid out of the court costs in the criminal case. Although it is not entirely clear, it would reasonably seem to follow that they are among the administration of justice costs contemplated by Act 1256. Accordingly, to the extent a city attorney's compensation included these fees, Act 1256 may indeed provide direction regarding the compensation of a city attorney wherein it states that cities "shall continue to finance ... municipal-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in part by court costs and filing fees...."

I cannot opine further in this regard. The foregoing may be of some assistance in explaining how Act 1256 of 1995 might bear on the compensation of a city attorney. But to the extent your question relates in some way to a particular city attorney's compensation, resolution of the matter must occur at the local level, as this office lacks the resources and authority to undertake the review necessary to determine an issue of that sort.

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

DM/EAW:cyh