Can an Arkansas county get state reimbursement for a juvenile probation officer salary even when two different officers each held the position less than a year?

Plain-English summary

State Auditor Andrea Lea asked the AG about her duty under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-331 to reimburse counties for a portion of the prior year's salaries of juvenile probation and juvenile intake officers. The statutes provided that the state would reimburse the lesser of $15,000 or half of the officer's salary, but only if the officer was certified and the salary had been paid by the county "for a period of one (1) year." The Auditor had three practical questions.

Question 1: If a single full-time position was filled by one certified officer who left and was replaced by another certified officer who served less than a year, could the state still reimburse?

The AG concluded the answer was likely yes, provided the county actually paid the full year's salary between the two officers, both met the certification rule, and the county submitted the required documentation. The statute could be read two ways. On one reading, "the salary" had to belong to one individual officer paid for a full year. On another, the statute referred to the salary for the full-time position, regardless of how many people filled it. The Auditor's office had long applied the second reading, and the AG could not say that was clearly wrong. A court would probably defer to that long-standing interpretation under the agency-deference doctrine. Legislative clarification was advisable.

Question 2: If an individual was newly hired and served a full year, did that individual have to be certified for the entire year for the county to be reimbursed?

The AG said no. Sections 16-13-327(c) and -328(c) say that probation and intake officers must complete their initial certification "within one year of employment." That language explicitly contemplates a period during the first year before certification is completed. As long as the officer obtained the initial certification within that first year, the certification requirement for reimbursement was met.

Question 3: As a corollary, could the county be reimbursed if an uncertified officer was hired, served a full year, and obtained certification during that first year?

Yes. Same answer as Question 2.

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

Each juvenile division of circuit court must have at least one juvenile probation officer (§ 16-13-327(a)) and at least one juvenile intake officer (§ 16-13-328(a)). They must be certified and must obtain initial certification within one year of employment, and they must maintain certification through their tenure. § 16-13-327(c), -328(c). Salaries are paid by the counties. § 16-13-327(d)(1)(A), -328(d)(1)(A).

The state reimburses a portion of each full-time officer's salary, conditioned on (1) certification under Arkansas law and (2) salary paid by the county "for a period of one (1) year." § 16-13-327(d)(1)(B), -328(d)(1)(B). A "year" is the employee's salary year. § 16-13-331(b)(2). The state's portion is the lesser of $15,000 or one-half of the officer's salary averaged over 12 months. § 16-13-327(d)(2), -328(d)(2). The State Auditor administers these reimbursements (§ 16-13-331(a)) and requires three things from a county to qualify: proof of certification and continuing education, a copy of the officer's W-2, and a completed Auditor's form on employment status. § 16-13-331(b).

The AG applied standard statutory construction principles. Where the language is plain, courts give it its plain meaning. Where it is ambiguous, courts look to subject matter, object, purpose, and legislative history (Macsteel, Parnell Consultants). Where a statute is ambiguous and the administering agency has applied a long-standing interpretation, courts defer unless it is clearly wrong (Leathers v. W.S. Compton Co.; Pledger v. Boyd).

Applying those rules, the AG concluded the salary clause was ambiguous: it could refer to either an individual officer or the position. The Auditor of State's long-standing practice of reading it as referring to the position (so that two officers in succession can collectively occupy the same year of full-time service) was a reasonable interpretation. The AG urged the legislature to clarify the statute.

Common questions

The same officer left after six months and someone certified replaced her for the rest of the year. Does the county get the money?

Under this opinion, likely yes, if the county paid a full year's salary between the two officers, both were certified per the statutory requirements, and all the documentation was submitted. The state had long applied the statute that way.

Does an officer have to be certified before being hired?

No. The statute gave officers up to one year from employment to complete initial certification. As long as certification was obtained within that first year and maintained thereafter, the certification requirement for reimbursement was met.

What about the multi-county scenario?

Section 16-13-331(d)(2) allows multiple counties to share the cost of a juvenile officer's salary. One county can be designated to receive reimbursement, or each county can designate its portion of the salary and be reimbursed pro-rata.

Did the AG recommend legislative action?

Yes. The opinion explicitly noted that the statutory ambiguity was not ideal and that legislative clarification was warranted. The conclusion to defer to the Auditor's interpretation was a litigation prediction, not an endorsement of the statute as written.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-327 (juvenile probation officers; certification; reimbursement)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-328 (juvenile intake officers; certification; reimbursement)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-331 (Auditor of State administration of reimbursements; documentation)
• Macsteel, Parnell Consultants v. Ark. Okla. Gas Corp., 363 Ark. 22, 210 S.W.3d 878 (2005)
• Leathers v. W.S. Compton Co., Inc., 316 Ark. 10, 870 S.W.2d 710 (1994) (agency deference)
• Pledger v. Boyd, 304 Ark. 91, 799 S.W.2d 807 (1990) (long-standing administrative interpretation)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-066
September 10, 2015
The Honorable Andrea Lea
State Auditor
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
500 Woodlane Street, Suite 230
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Auditor Lea:
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the Auditor of State's duty, under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-331 (Repl. 2010), to reimburse counties for a portion of the previous year's salaries of juvenile probation officers and juvenile intake officers. As background for your request, you relay the following:

Probation officers are required to be certified and must complete their initial certification requirements within one year of employment. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-327(c). They must maintain their certification during the term of their employment. Likewise, intake officers are required to be certified and must complete their initial certification requirements within one year of employment. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-328(c). They must maintain their certification during the term of their employment.

Counties may have both probation and intake officer salaries reimbursed by the state. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-13-327(d) and -328(d). To be eligible for state reimbursement, probation and intake officers must fulfill the following requirements: (1) be certified according to the laws of Arkansas, and (2) have their salary paid "by the county or counties for a period of one (1) year." If these requirements are met, the county may receive whichever is less: $15,000 per year or half the probation or intake officer's salary.

In light of the foregoing, you pose the following questions:

1. If a full-time juvenile intake or probation officer position is filled with a certified officer who leaves the position and is replaced with a certified officer who serves for less than a year, may the Auditor of State reimburse the county for that full-time position?
2. If an individual is newly hired for a full-time juvenile intake or probation officer position and serves for a full year, must that individual be certified for the entire year for the county to be reimbursed for his or her salary under the statute?
3. Or, may the county also be reimbursed if an uncertified officer is hired, serves an entire year, and obtains his or her certification during the officer's first year of service as per Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-13-327(d) and -328(d)?

RESPONSE

As long as a county pays a full year's salary between the two officers, the officers meet all statutory requirements for their employment, and the county submits the required documentation, then the answer to your first question is likely "yes," in my opinion. This is owing to what I believe a court would find to be ambiguous statutory language coupled with the state's apparent long-standing practice in this regard. Legislative clarification is warranted, however. With respect to Question 2, in my opinion the answer is "no." Accordingly, the answer to Question 3 is "yes," in my opinion.

DISCUSSION

Each juvenile division of circuit court in the state is to be provided with at least one juvenile probation officer and at least one juvenile intake officer (collectively, "juvenile officers"). These juvenile officers must be certified as juvenile probation or juvenile intake officers; they must obtain their initial certification within one year of the employment; and they must maintain their certification during the terms of their employment.

The juvenile officers' salaries are paid by the county or counties where the officers work. The state is required to reimburse the counties a portion of the salary paid to each full-time juvenile officer who is certified and "[w]hose salary has been paid by the county or counties for a period of one (1) year." The Auditor of State is charged with administering these reimbursements.

The state's portion for each juvenile officer's salary is the lesser of $15,000 or one-half of the officer's average salary as calculated over the last 12 months. However, the state "shall reimburse a county only for salaries paid to the number of [juvenile] officers" that meet these requirements. In order for a county to receive reimbursement, the county must submit to the State Auditor: 1) proof of each juvenile's officer's certification and continuing education hours; 2) a copy of each juvenile officer's W-2 form for the salary (i.e. tax) year being reimbursed; and, 3) a completed form, designed and distributed by the State Auditor's office, showing each officer's employment status.

Question 1: You seem to be asking whether the state should reimburse a county if the county pays a full year's salary for a juvenile probation officer's or juvenile intake officer's position, but the position is held by two or more people who, individually, serve less than one year. This question seems to be prompted by the quoted statutory language above: "[w]hose salary has been paid by the county or counties for a period of one (1) year."

In attempting to resolve your question, which turns on the proper interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-13-327(d) and -328(d), I am guided by the following principles of statutory construction: 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 meaning and usually accepted meaning in common language. The courts 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. When the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. When the meaning is not clear, the courts 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.

Finally, where a statute is ambiguous and subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the courts give deference to the interpretation of the statute by the regulatory agency responsible for administering and enforcing that statute. This is particularly true where the administrative interpretation is of long standing. In such a case, the administrative interpretation will not be disregarded unless it is clearly wrong.

Applying these principles to both statutes in question, it is my opinion that a court likely would find the language in subsections (d)(1) of both statutes ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations.

On the one hand, the above subsections could be read to refer to an individual juvenile officer and to contemplate that reimbursement for that officer's salary is only due if that individual officer was paid by a county or counties for a full one-year period. Under this interpretation, the state would be prohibited from making reimbursement if more than one person held for the same job within the same salary year because no one person's salary would have been paid by the county or counties "for a period of one (1) year."

On the other hand, the subsections could be read to refer to a juvenile officer position, the salary for which a county has paid for one year. Under such an interpretation, if a county has paid a full-year's salary for a juvenile officer's position, whether it was held by one or more qualified persons, then the state would be obligated to make the reimbursement, provided that all other statutory requirements are met.

It is my understanding that the State Auditor's office has administered these reimbursements with this latter interpretation. I cannot say that this interpretation is clearly wrong. While legislative clarification is warranted, this interpretation seems to be in line with the overall statutory purpose: to provide probation and intake officers for the state's juvenile judges and to have the state assist the counties by reimbursing them for a portion of the juvenile officers' full-year salaries actually paid by those counties.

In sum, as long as all other statutory requirements are met and the county provides the required documentation to the State Auditor, then in my opinion the answer to your first question is likely "yes." I think a court in all likelihood would find the relevant statutes ambiguous and therefore defer to the administering agency's long-standing practice. It is my understanding that past practice has been for the state to make the salary reimbursements when a county has paid a salary for such position for a period of one year, irrespective of whether one or more qualified persons filled that position during the year.

Questions 2 and 3: In my opinion, the answer to Question 2 is "no." Accordingly, the answer to Question 3 is "yes," in my opinion. Under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-13-327(c) and -328(c), all that is required for juvenile officers is that they 1) be certified as juvenile officers according to the laws of the state; 2) complete their initial certification requirements within one year of their employments; and, 3) maintain such certification during their employment as juvenile officers. These statutes clearly state that the officers must complete their initial certifications within their first year of employment, not necessarily prior to accepting employment or starting work.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General