Did the Arkansas AG approve Little Rock's interlocal agreement to join the Law Enforcement Information Exchange (LInX)?
Plain-English summary
Little Rock City Attorney Thomas Carpenter asked the AG to approve an interlocal-cooperation agreement that would let the City join LInX (the Law Enforcement Information Exchange), a multi-agency information-sharing initiative across federal, state, county, and municipal entities. Under the Arkansas Interlocal Cooperation Act (A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524), an interlocal agreement does not take effect until the AG reviews and approves it.
AG Tim Griffin declined to approve. The Act requires every interlocal agreement that does not create a separate legal entity to "specify" seven mandatory terms (A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)). Six of those were present in the LInX agreement; one was not. The agreement did not "specify… [t]he manner of… establishing and maintaining a budget" for the joint or cooperative undertaking, as A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)(4) requires.
The AG noted there were some cost-allocation provisions (each party bears its own costs; no cost to Little Rock to make the connection unless it changes its records-management environment), but cost-sharing is not the same as budgeting. There was also a generic clause giving the LInX governing board authority to "establish additional procedures and rules," which might cover budget rules in practice, but did not "specify" them. The opinion read "specify" to mean "to state in detail" (Random House and Black's Law Dictionary), so a generic delegation of rulemaking authority is not enough.
Without AG approval, the agreement does not take effect under § 25-20-104(f)(1).
What this means for you
If you are a city attorney drafting an interlocal agreement
Use the seven-term checklist in A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c) and "specify" each one in the agreement text. The opinion makes clear that "specify" means "state in detail." Generic delegations to a governing board are insufficient even when the board could later adopt detailed rules. Items that frequently get under-specified:
- The manner of establishing and maintaining a budget (the issue in this opinion).
- The manner of partial or complete termination, plus property disposition.
- The mechanics of how each agency is represented on a joint board, if there is one.
Treat AG review as a substantive checkpoint, not a formality. The agreement does not become effective until the AG signs off; if a key clause is missing, the AG will return it.
If you are a project manager or public-safety leader
Even if your information-sharing arrangement is technically "no-cost" to your agency, the budget specification still matters. You can describe expected costs as zero, identify the long-run cost driver (a future change in your records-management environment, in this LInX example), and describe how the joint board will set and revise the operating budget. The point is detail, not dollar amounts.
If you are advising a county or state agency entering an interlocal agreement
The opinion's reading of "specify" is broad. A generic catch-all delegation of authority to a governing board is not "specifying" a required term. Build the budget mechanics into the four-corners of the agreement.
Common questions
Q: What is LInX?
A: The Law Enforcement Information Exchange. It is a multi-agency information-sharing system that aggregates law-enforcement records across federal, state, county, and municipal participants for joint access. The opinion does not address LInX's substantive operation; it focuses on the agreement's compliance with Arkansas's Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Q: What are the seven mandatory terms?
A: Under A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c), every interlocal agreement that does not create a separate legal entity must specify: (1) duration; (2) purposes; (3) the manner of financing and of establishing and maintaining a budget; (4) how to terminate (in whole or in part) and dispose of property; (5) other necessary and proper matters; (6) provisions for any joint administrative board with each agency represented; and (7) the manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the joint undertaking.
Q: Could the parties just amend the agreement to add the missing budget specifications?
A: Yes, that is the typical fix. Once the agreement specifies "the manner of establishing and maintaining a budget" in detail, the parties can resubmit for AG approval. The opinion does not block the agreement substantively; it returns the document for the missing specification.
Q: Could a generic delegation to a "governing board" cover the gap?
A: No, according to the opinion. The board's general authority to "establish additional procedures and rules" might in practice be exercised to set a budget, but the Act requires the agreement to "specify" the manner. A generic delegation does not count.
Q: What happens to operations under an unapproved agreement?
A: Under A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(1), the agreement is not in effect without AG approval. Parties operating under it would be acting outside the Interlocal Cooperation Act framework, with attendant risk. The fix is to amend and resubmit.
Q: Is AG approval a one-time thing?
A: For each agreement, yes. Material amendments may need a fresh review. Routine, non-material implementation decisions by the parties typically do not.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas's Interlocal Cooperation Act (A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524) lets public agencies enter into joint or cooperative agreements with other public agencies (including federal agencies, other Arkansas political subdivisions, and political subdivisions of other states). The Act has two basic structures:
- Separate-legal-entity agreements, which create a new entity and have their own list of required terms.
- Non-entity agreements, which require the seven specifications in A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c).
For both, the AG's office reviews each agreement to determine whether it "is consistent with Arkansas law" (A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(1)). If yes, the AG approves and the agreement becomes effective. If a required term is missing, the AG explains the deficiency and returns the agreement.
The opinion's substantive contribution is the construction of "specify" in the budgeting requirement. Citing Random House and Black's Law Dictionary, the AG read it as "to state in detail; to point out; to tell or state precisely." A generic delegation of rulemaking authority does not satisfy that standard. The opinion does not address whether parallel cost-sharing language, plus a delegation, could ever satisfy § 25-20-104(c)(4) by combination; the AG's holding is that, on the four corners of this agreement, the budget specification is missing.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524, Interlocal Cooperation Act
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104, required contents and AG approval
- A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1)(B)-(C): definition of "public agency"
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-081
October 8, 2024
Thomas M. Carpenter
Little Rock City Attorney
500 West Marcham Street, Suite 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
Under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, you have requested my review and approval of an agreement between the City of Little Rock and a number of federal, state, county, and municipal entities. The agreement would allow Little Rock to participate in an "information sharing initiative known as the Law Enforcement Information Exchange" (LInX).
RESPONSE
After reviewing the agreement, I have determined that it does not meet the requirements of A.C.A. § 25-20-104. I therefore cannot approve the agreement.
DISCUSSION
For interlocal agreements under A.C.A. § 25-20-104 to become effective, this office must review the agreement to determine whether it is consistent with Arkansas law. Under § 25-20-104, an interlocal agreement must be between "two… or more public agencies… for joint cooperative action." For interlocal agreements that do not create a separate legal entity to conduct the undertaking, like this one, the following seven terms must be specified in the agreement:
- The agreement's duration;
- The agreement's purposes;
- The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and of establishing and maintaining a budget for it;
- How to partially or completely terminate the agreement, and how to dispose of property upon partial or complete termination;
- Any other necessary and proper matters;
- Provisions for, as relevant to this agreement, a joint board to administer the joint or cooperative undertaking and upon which each public agency is represented;
- The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking.
If these details are specified in the interlocal agreement, I must approve the agreement, and the agreement becomes effective. If any of these details are not specified, I must explain the agreement's deficiencies, and the agreement will not be effective.
Here, the submitted agreement fails in only one respect: It does not "specify… [t]he manner of… establishing and maintaining a budget" for the joint or cooperative undertaking. Although there are some provisions about cost allocation to finance the joint action, there are none about budgeting.
There is one provision that gives the governing board of the undertaking broad power to "establish additional procedures and rules," which may be broad enough to give it budgetary authority. Nevertheless, this provision does not "specify" the manner of establishing and maintaining the budget. To meet the statutory requirement, the agreement must "state in detail" the necessary budgetary information.
Therefore, I cannot approve the submitted agreement, and under § 25-20-104, the agreement is not in effect.
Deputy Attorney General Noah P. Watson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General