Has Washington County Ordinance 2013-12 expired at the end of the biennium, and does Act 985 of 2013 apply to it?

Plain-English summary

Senator Jon Woods asked the AG about Washington County Ordinance 2013-12. His questions were whether the ordinance expired with the end of the biennium and whether Act 985 of 2013 applied to it. Senator Uvalde Lindsey had asked closely related questions the same day. The AG issued one substantive opinion (Op. 2015-023) addressing both inquiries and used this opinion to refer Senator Woods to Op. 2015-023 for the analysis.

The substantive answer from Op. 2015-023: Act 985 of 2013 applies to the Washington County ordinance, including any committee of the whole established before the Act took effect. The ordinance is of no effect to the extent it conflicts with state law, regardless of enactment order. The Finance and Budget Committee of the Whole provision cannot continue without the county judge's consent. The rest of the ordinance is likely severable and survives.

This opinion is a cross-reference. It contains no independent analysis. The reader should consult [[ar/2015-0023-does-the-provision-in-a-c-a-14-14-904-d-2-b-a-regular-commit]] for the full reasoning.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. 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.

Background and statutory framework

The AG sometimes issues cross-reference opinions when two legislators ask about the same dispute on closely overlapping facts. Rather than write two parallel opinions with the same analysis, the AG writes one substantive opinion and points the other inquiry to it. This practice avoids duplication and keeps the substantive reasoning in a single authoritative document.

For the substantive issues (whether the ordinance expired with the biennium, and whether Act 985 of 2013 applies to it), see Op. 2015-023, issued the same day. The substantive opinion addresses:

• The relationship between Act 985 of 2013 and pre-existing quorum-court committee structures.
• The state-preemption analysis under Ark. Const. amend. 55 and Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-808.
• The severability of the non-conflicting portions of Washington County Ordinance 2013-12.

Common questions

Why didn't the AG write a full opinion for Senator Woods?
The AG had already issued Op. 2015-023 to Senator Lindsey on the same Washington County ordinance. Writing a duplicate would have been wasteful. Cross-referencing is standard AG practice when multiple inquiries cover the same issue.

Does this opinion add anything to Op. 2015-023?
No. It is procedural only.

Where can I find the substantive analysis?
Op. 2015-023, issued April 29, 2015, by the same office.

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-031
April 29, 2015

The Honorable Jon Woods
State Senator
Post Office Box 8082

STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

Springdale, Arkansas 72766-8082

Dear Senator Woods:

You requested my opinion on questions about the applicability of Act 985 of 2013 to a Washington County ordinance requiring that a quorum court committee be a committee of the whole.

I enclose a copy of an opinion on this matter I issued today to Senator Uvalde Lindsey. I believe the opinion adequately addresses the issues your request raises. See Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-023.

Assistant Attorney General J.M. Barker prepared this opinion, which I approve.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
LR/JMB:cyh
Enclosure