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?

Plain-English summary

A new administrative circuit judge for the Second Judicial District reported that her predecessor had approved using circuit court automation funds to pay a sheriff's office employee who collected fines and an employee of a circuit clerk's office in another county. She asked whether the fund could pay employees whose duties did not advance court technology.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said the automation fund "[is] to be used solely for circuit court-related technology." The statute permits indirect expenses, including personnel and travel, related to implementation of new court technology. If the employees' duties had no connection to court technology, paying their salaries and benefits from the fund would appear improper. The AG expressly declined to rule definitively on those two employees without all relevant facts.

The opinion also said the administrative circuit judge determines how the fund is spent and must approve expenditures. The statute also requires authorization and payment under state laws governing county appropriations and expenditures. The judge's spending authority remains bounded by the technology restriction.

What this means for you

If you are an administrative circuit judge

The statute requires your approval of expenditures from the automation fund. It limits spending to court-related technology, including the indirect technology expenses it names. The AG said that paying employees whose functions have no connection to that technology would appear to misuse the fund.

The AG said she could not definitively decide whether the two reported payments were unlawful because she lacked potentially relevant facts. The opinion does not address prorating the salary of an employee with mixed duties.

If you are a county judge, quorum court, or county finance officer

The administrative circuit judge approves fund expenditures, and the statute requires them to be authorized and paid under county appropriation and expenditure laws. Any expenditure still must relate to circuit court technology.

The opinion quotes a separate $5 monthly installment fee remitted to the collecting official "to be used to defray the cost of fine collection." Footnote 10 says paying the sheriff's fine-collection employee from fees remitted to the sheriff's office would be an appropriate use of those funds. It does not decide the employee's actual pay arrangement.

If you are a sheriff or circuit clerk

The AG's rule concerns what the automation fund may pay for: circuit court-related technology. The opinion does not identify a replacement funding source for circuit clerk salaries. It notes a separate fee for fine-collection costs and, in footnote 10, conditionally approves paying the sheriff's fine-collection employee from fees remitted to the sheriff's office.

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 said paying an employee whose duties bear no connection to court technology from the automation fund would appear improper. Footnote 10 says paying the sheriff's fine-collection employee from fees remitted to the sheriff's office would be appropriate. The AG did not make a definitive finding about the reported payroll arrangement.

Q: Was anyone in trouble for the prior arrangement? A: The opinion does not impose a sanction. It says the reported arrangement appears to misuse the fund if the employees' duties have no connection to court technology, while withholding a definitive conclusion about the two payments.

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:

1. 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)).

2. 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

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

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

PDF footnote 8: As clarified by subdivision 16-13-704(b)(2)(B)(ii), these automation funds may be used for expenses that indirectly relate to court technology, such as "overtime pay, personnel or travel expenses, and technology-related supplies." But there must still be some connection to court-related technology.

PDF footnote 9: Ops. Att'y Gen. 2018-075, 2016-092.

PDF footnote 10: Only the fees remitted to the circuit court automation fund must be used for circuit court-related technology. If the Sheriff's Office employee who collects fines were to be paid from the installment fees that are remitted to the Sheriff's Office, that would be an appropriate use of those funds. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3)(E)(i) (declaring that such funds shall "be used to defray the cost of fine collection").