Can a county use circuit court automation funds to pay the salary of a sheriff's office employee who collects fines, or a circuit clerk's office employee, when neither works on courtroom technology?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A new administrative circuit judge for the Second Judicial District discovered that her predecessor had approved using circuit court automation funds to pay (1) a sheriff's office employee whose job is collecting court fines, and (2) an employee in another county's circuit clerk's office. Neither worked on courtroom technology. She asked whether that was lawful.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said no. The statute that creates the fund, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704, allows the county treasurer's half of the $5 monthly installment fee to be deposited only in the "circuit court automation fund," which "shall be used solely for circuit court-related technology." The statute permits indirect court-tech expenses like overtime pay, personnel cost, and travel "related to implementation of new court-related technology," but the link to court technology has to be there. Paying a fine collector or clerk's office employee whose job functions have no connection to courtroom tech does not qualify.
The opinion also cleared up which official decides how these funds are spent: the administrative circuit judge of the judicial circuit, not the county judge or quorum court, because subdivision (b)(2)(B)(i) requires the administrative circuit judge to approve expenditures. That authority is still bounded by the statute's "court-related technology" rule.
What this means for you
If you are an administrative circuit judge
Based on this opinion, you control approval of every expenditure from the circuit court automation fund, but the statute caps what the fund can be spent on. If a county finance officer or quorum court routes a salary line through the automation fund for someone who is not actually working on court technology, the AG's analysis treats that as a misuse of the fund. The opinion specifically rejects paying a sheriff's fine-collection employee or a circuit clerk's staffer out of the automation fund.
The AG was careful to say it cannot make a finder-of-fact determination about any particular county's payroll. So if you inherit an arrangement that looks suspect, the next step is usually to gather the job description and ask whether any of the employee's actual duties are court-tech work. A pure fine-collection role almost certainly fails that test. A hybrid role might survive on a pro-rated basis, but the burden is on showing a real court-tech function.
If you are a county judge, quorum court, or county finance officer
Two practical takeaways. First, the administrative circuit judge, not you, decides spending out of the circuit court automation fund. Second, your appropriation and disbursement still has to fit the statute. If a circuit judge tries to spend automation money on something that doesn't relate to court technology, the AG's view is that it would violate § 16-13-704(b)(2)(A)(ii), and county officials are right to flag it.
The opinion also points to a different funding pot for fine-collection work: under § 16-13-704(b)(3)(E)(i), a separate $5 monthly installment fee is "remitted to the collecting official to be used to defray the cost of fine collection." That is the correct source for a sheriff's fine collector's salary, not the automation fund.
If you are a sheriff or circuit clerk
If your office has historically been paid out of the automation fund for non-court-tech work, expect that arrangement to be challenged. The AG's reading is plain: the automation fund is only for technology. Sheriffs can use the separate fine-collection fee under (b)(3)(E)(i) for fine-collection staff. Clerks may need the county quorum court to fund clerk salaries from general appropriations, not from the court automation pot.
Common questions
Q: What is the "circuit court automation fund"?
A: A county-level fund that receives half of a $5 monthly installment fee charged to defendants paying circuit court fines on installment. The fee is collected under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704. The county treasurer holds the money, and it can only be spent on circuit-court-related technology.
Q: Who decides how to spend it?
A: The administrative circuit judge of the judicial circuit, under § 16-13-704(b)(2)(B)(i). The opinion reasons by analogy to a 2016 opinion (2016-048) that gave district judges control of the parallel district-court automation fund.
Q: Can the fund pay overtime, travel, or supplies?
A: Yes, under (b)(2)(B)(ii), but only when those costs are "related to implementation of new court-related technology." A line item that has no connection to courtroom tech does not qualify just because the statute mentions overtime and personnel.
Q: What about a sheriff's fine collector? They handle court money.
A: The AG's view is that handling fine money is fine collection, not court technology. The statute already creates a separate funding stream for fine-collection costs in (b)(3)(E)(i). That separate fee is what should pay a fine collector, not the automation fund.
Q: Was anyone in trouble for the prior arrangement?
A: The opinion does not levy any sanction. It just answers the legal question. The judge raised the issue prospectively and the AG agreed the prior practice was probably improper.
Q: Can a circuit judge order a county to keep paying out of the automation fund?
A: No. The opinion reiterates that judicial authority over the fund is "necessarily circumscribed" by the statute's restrictions to court-related technology. A judge's approval power does not override the spending limit.
Background and statutory framework
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704 sets up two streams of installment fees on defendants paying fines monthly in circuit court:
-
A $5 monthly installment fee. Half goes to the state Administration of Justice Funds Section for the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund (§ 16-13-712); the other half goes to the county treasurer's "circuit court automation fund," which "shall be used solely for circuit court-related technology" (§ 16-13-704(b)(2)(A)(ii)).
-
An additional $5 monthly fee in circuit court only, which is "remitted to the collecting official to be used to defray the cost of fine collection" (§ 16-13-704(b)(3)(E)(i)).
The two streams have different purposes and different fund custodians. The first one funds court tech under the administrative circuit judge's direction. The second one reimburses the collecting official, typically the sheriff, for fine-collection overhead.
The AG cited the well-settled rule that statutes are construed by their plain language, citing Macsteel, Parnell Consultants v. Ark. Ok. Gas Corp., 363 Ark. 22, 210 S.W.3d 878 (2005) (Arkansas Supreme Court). When the legislature said the automation fund "shall be used solely for circuit court-related technology," that text controls.
Citations
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704 (installment fees and fund allocation)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(2)(A)(ii) ("solely for circuit court-related technology")
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(2)(B)(i) (administrative circuit judge approval)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(2)(B)(ii) (indirect court-tech expenses, including personnel)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3)(E)(i) (separate fee for collecting official's costs)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-712 (Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund)
- Macsteel, Parnell Consultants v. Ark. Ok. Gas Corp., 363 Ark. 22, 210 S.W.3d 878 (2005)
- Op. Att'y Gen. 2016-048 (district court automation fund parallel)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2021-055
November 3, 2021
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
The Honorable Pamela B. Honeycutt
Circuit Judge, Second Judicial District
P.O. Box 1951
Jonesboro, AR 72403
Dear Judge Honeycutt:
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the use of circuit court
automation funds, which are collected pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704. In
this regard, you have provided the following background information:
Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-13-704 provides for the collection of
a fee of $10.00 per month for installment payments made by criminal
defendants. The Sheriff's Office receives $5.00 of the fee, then the
remaining $5.00 is split between the Circuit Court Automation Fund
and the Administration of Justice Fund at the Department of Finance
and Administration.
Subdivision 16-13-704(b)(2)(B)(ii) states: "Expenditures may be
made for indirect expenses related to implementation of new court
related technology, including overtime pay, personnel or travel
expenses, and technology related supplies."
Upon recently assuming the Office of Administrative Judge for the
2nd Judicial District of Arkansas, I have discovered that my
predecessor approved the use of these funds to (1) pay salary and
benefit expenses of an employee of the Sheriff's office who collects
fines and (2) in another county approved paying the salary of one of
the employees of the Circuit Clerk's office.
I do not believe this to be a proper use of these funds, but when I
approached the counties regarding such, they stated they relied on an
Attorney General Opinion when these approvals were made, though
they claim to no longer have the opinion.
These are regular full-time employees of the Sheriff's office and the
Clerk's office, respectively, and they are not involved in "courtroom
technology" for which the funds are earmarked.
In light of the foregoing information, you have asked the following question:
Could you please provide any related opinions and, if none are on
point, could you provide a new opinion on the use of Circuit Court
Automation Funds to pay salaries and benefits for employees in the
county who are not employed to advance courtroom technology but
only to collect fines or as a Circuit Clerk?
RESPONSE
Subdivision 16-13-704(b)(2) of the Arkansas Code clearly requires that circuit court
automation funds be used for purposes relating to circuit court technology.
Consequently, the use of these funds for some other purpose, such as paying the
salaries and benefits of county employees whose job functions do not relate to
circuit court technology, would be an improper use of these funds.
DISCUSSION
As relevant to your question, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704 provides:
(b)(1)(A) In addition to the fine and any other assessments authorized
by this subchapter, an installment fee of five dollars ($5.00) per month
shall be assessed on each person who is authorized to pay a fine on an
installment basis.
(2)(A)(i) One-half (1/2) of the installment fee collected in circuit court
shall be remitted by the tenth day of each month to the Administration
of Justice Funds Section of the Office of Administrative Services of
the Department of Finance and Administration ... for deposit into the
Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund established by § 16-13-712.
(ii) The other half of the installment fee shall be remitted by the tenth
day of each month to the county treasurer to be deposited into a fund
entitled the "circuit court automation fund" to be used solely for
circuit court-related technology.
(B)(i) Expenditures from the circuit court automation fund shall be
approved by the administrative circuit judge of each judicial circuit
and shall be authorized and paid under the state laws governing the
appropriation and payment of county expenditures.
(ii) Expenditures may be made for indirect expenses related to
implementation of new court-related technology, including overtime
pay, personnel or travel expenses, and technology-related supplies.
(E)(i) In circuit court only, an installment fee of an additional five
dollars ($5.00) per month shall also be assessed on the first day of
each month on each person who is ordered to pay a fine on an
installment basis with the additional five dollars ($5.00) to be remitted
to the collecting official to be used to defray the cost of fine collection.
While not explicitly stated in the text of section 16-13-704, the cumulative effect of
the above provisions is that a defendant who is authorized to pay a fine on an
installment basis in circuit court is assessed a $10 installment fee per month. Of
that, five dollars go to the collecting official, whom you have noted is the Sheriff.
The remainder is split equally between the Department of Finance and
Administration and the county treasurer. The money remitted to the county
treasurer must be deposited into the "circuit court automation fund." And as the
plain language of the statute makes clear, money from this automation fund is "to
be used solely for circuit court-related technology." Thus, any use of these funds
for a purpose not related to court technology would violate the statute.
Because I am neither equipped nor charged to act as a finder of fact in issuing
opinions, I cannot definitively state that the use of circuit court automation funds to
pay the two employees you mention is unlawful, as there may be relevant facts to
which I am not privy. However, the situation you describe, in which circuit court
automation funds are used to pay the salaries and benefits of two county employees
whose job functions bear no connection to "circuit court-related technology,"
appears to be a misuse of funds.
You also ask for any previous Attorney General opinions that may be on point, given
that the county officials you spoke to claim to have relied upon an opinion from this
office when deciding how to use the automation funds. While there are no opinions
directly on point, I suspect the counties may have relied upon Op. Att'y Gen. 2016-048,
which I have attached for your convenience. In that opinion, I stated that
district court judges are responsible for determining how district court automation
funds should be spent. This conclusion was based on subdivision 16-13-704(b)(3)(D)(i)'s
requirement that expenditures from the district court automation
fund be approved by the district judge. Subdivision 16-13-704(b)(2)(B)(i) contains
a similar requirement that expenditures from the circuit court automation fund be
approved by the administrative circuit judge. Hence, one can deduce that the
administrative circuit judge is similarly responsible for determining how circuit
court automation funds are spent. Despite this, however, it must be emphasized that
the authority of both the district and circuit judge to determine how automation
funds should be spent is necessarily circumscribed by the restrictions set forth in
statute. Namely, expenditures from the funds may only be spent on court-related
technology, as required by subdivisions 16-13-704(b)(2)(A)(ii) and (b)(3)(B).
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2021 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.