In Arkansas, does the county judge or the quorum court decide which committee a proposed ordinance goes to?

Plain-English summary

Representative Mark Lowery asked whether a county judge or the quorum court assigns proposed ordinances to the court's committees. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge concluded that the assignment belongs exclusively to the quorum court.

The county judge presides over the quorum court and appoints people to its committees. The quorum court decides which committees are needed and sets procedural rules for its own work. Rutledge treated the assignment of an ordinance to a committee as part of that legislative and procedural authority, separate from appointing committee members.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Check current law and local procedural rules before applying it to a county today.

Common questions

Q: Who assigns a proposed ordinance to a quorum-court committee?
A: The quorum court. Rutledge concluded that this power belongs exclusively to the court rather than to the county judge as presiding officer.

Q: What does the county judge decide about committees?
A: The judge appoints their members. The opinion also says a committee larger than a quorum of the whole court requires the judge's consent. Assigning an ordinance does not interfere with those powers.

Q: Can the quorum court establish committee-member term lengths?
A: Rutledge said justices of the peace may establish term lengths through procedural rules after the judge appoints members. She gave no condition tied to the tenure of a later county judge.

Q: Why does ordinance assignment count as the quorum court's function?
A: The opinion says ordinances may be proposed only by quorum-court members. Creating a process for assigning them falls within the court's authority to manage its affairs and set its rules of procedure.

Background and statutory framework

Amendment 55, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution gives the quorum court local legislative authority not denied by law. Rutledge also cited Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-801 for the court's authority to manage its affairs, and § 14-14-904 for its procedural rules and the judge's committee-appointment power. She read those provisions together and found that the judge's appointment authority did not include routing proposed ordinances.

Citations

• Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 1
• Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-14-801, 14-14-904

Source

• Arkansas Attorney General opinions search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2017-004
March 7, 2017
The Honorable Mark Lowery
State Representative
229 Summit Valley Circle
Maumelle, AR 72113-5934
Dear Representative Lowery:

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the ability of county judges and quorum courts to assign proposed ordinances to committees. Your questions are as follows:

1) Is the county judge, as the quorum court's presiding officer under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-904, authorized to assign proposed ordinances to quorum-court committees?

2) Is the quorum court authorized to assign proposed ordinances to committees, pursuant to the quorum court's ability under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-904 to enact procedural rules?

RESPONSE

I can better answer your questions by combining them: Does the county judge, or instead the quorum court, have the authority to assign proposed ordinances to committees? In my opinion, that power lies exclusively with the quorum court.

Arkansas law reserves to the quorum court a county's local legislative authority, as well as the ability to manage the affairs of the quorum court itself. Likewise, the quorum court is authorized to set procedures for its own operation, so long as those rules do not violate state law or encroach on the county judge's executive powers. The county judge is empowered to appoint the members of quorum-court committees, and the judge may limit the size of those committees to a majority of the court as a whole. However, assigning proposed ordinances to specific committees falls within the quorum-court's managerial and procedural authorities, if not its local legislative powers.

DISCUSSION

Arkansas law does not directly address whether a county's executive or legislative branch is responsible for assigning ordinances to a committee of the quorum court. The roles of the two branches are defined in other areas of county governance, however, and these statutes inform my response. With respect to the executive, the county judge is authorized to appoint committees as the quorum court's presiding officer. This office has maintained that the county judge's appointment authority is coextensive with the ability to "name persons to serve on the committees." In other words, "committee members must be appointed by the presiding officer of the quorum court." But the county judge's appointment authority has limits. It is "subject to any procedural rules" enacted by ordinance, such that justices of the peace may "establish[] the term lengths of committee members" once the judge has appointed them. And "which committees are to be formed" is distinct from deciding who will be a member of which committee, the county judge's authority to appoint is triggered only after the quorum court has "determine[d] which committees will be necessary."

The quorum court derives authority from the constitutional mandate to govern consistently with state law as well as from statutes that specifically sanction certain functions. Under Amendment 55, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, a quorum court "may exercise local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." This "broad grant of power" is echoed in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-801, which provides that a quorum court may "exercise local legislative authority not expressly prohibited by the Arkansas Constitution or by law for the affairs of the county." The quorum court also has certain enumerated powers, among them the authority to "[p]rovide for its own organization and management of its affairs" and the prerogative to "determine at the first regular meeting its rules of procedure." And to the extent the quorum court's actions are not "inconsistent with law," it may "[e]xercise other powers . . . necessary for effective administration of authorized services and functions."

In light of this delineation between the executive and legislative branches of county government, it is my opinion that the quorum court is exclusively authorized to assign ordinances to the various committees appointed by the county judge. First, assigning ordinances for consideration at the committee level is not a function "denied by the Constitution or by law" to the quorum court. So while Arkansas statute prevents a quorum court from impinging on the county judge's authority to appoint committee members, designating this or that ordinance for a certain committee appears unlikely to affect the appointment authority. And while quorum courts cannot form committees larger than a quorum of the whole without the county judge's consent, I see no reason why designating a proposed ordinance for a given committee would interfere with the judge's ability to grant or withhold that consent. Because quorum courts are not prohibited from assigning ordinances to committees, I must conclude that generally they are allowed to do so.

Moreover, in my opinion, Arkansas statutes at least impliedly authorize quorum courts to assign ordinances to committees. Ordinances may only be proposed by members of the quorum court, and it reasonably follows that creating a process for proposing and assigning new ordinances is an administrative or managerial function suitable for the quorum court. Additionally, this process would "involv[e] the mode of proceeding" for a county government. That is, it would fall within another of the quorum court's enumerated authorities: "determin[ing] at the first regular meeting its rules of procedure."

In conclusion, I find the assignment of ordinances to be one of the quorum court's "authorized . . . functions" for the reasons discussed above, beginning with the fact that it is "not expressly prohibited by the Arkansas Constitution or by law." It is therefore my opinion that the quorum court, and not the county judge, is properly tasked with assigning proposed ordinances to committees.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General