Who has the legal authority to give a raise to a county tax collector's office staff or a county circuit clerk's office staff in Arkansas?
Subject
Whether the county quorum court must approve raises for employees of elected county officials (tax collector, circuit clerk, county judge); what happens when an "improper" raise was given; and whether the quorum court can later ratify it.
Plain-English summary
Senator Stephanie Flowers asked the AG three questions about how raises work in an Arkansas county office.
The constitutional and statutory plumbing is straightforward. Under Arkansas Constitution Amendment 55, only the quorum court can set the number and compensation of county employees and appropriate the funds to pay them. That includes raises. An elected county official like the tax collector or circuit clerk cannot decide on their own to give a staff member a bigger paycheck and have the county pay for it. The quorum court has to pass an ordinance that sets the new salary and appropriates the funds. The county judge can veto an appropriation ordinance, but a three-fifths vote of the full quorum court overrides the veto. The county judge then administers the appropriation as an executive matter; the judge cannot raise or lower a salary that the quorum court did not authorize.
If somebody gave a raise without proper quorum court action, the county will not fund the raise. The employee continues to receive whatever salary was last properly set and appropriated by the quorum court. To make the new amount lawful, the quorum court has to pass an ordinance setting and appropriating it. Until that happens, paying the higher amount risks personal liability for the official who authorized it and a clawback of any overpaid wages.
The quorum court can ratify an improper raise after the fact. Because the quorum court has the final authority over county-employee compensation, it can pass an ordinance retroactively setting the higher salary and appropriating the funds. The opinion is careful to add that the raise is not valid until the quorum court actually does this; the bare possibility of ratification does not legalize the underlying overpayment.
The AG flagged that he did not have facts to address other paths to "improperness," for example a procedural defect inside the quorum court's own action. The opinion's analysis is squarely about the missing-ordinance scenario.
What this means for you
Elected county officials (tax collectors, circuit clerks, sheriffs, assessors, judges of probate)
You do not have unilateral authority to raise your office's staff salaries. Even if your budget allocation could absorb it, even if the employee deserves it, even if it's a market-driven retention move, the raise has to go through the quorum court. The path is to put the proposed salary structure in front of the quorum court (often through a personnel or finance committee), get an appropriation ordinance passed, and only then update payroll.
If you suspect a raise was given without quorum court approval, two things happen at once: the higher amount cannot legally be paid, and the employee falls back to their last validly set salary. Document when the unauthorized raise started, freeze further payments at the old rate, and bring an ordinance to the quorum court to either ratify the higher amount or formalize a different correction.
Quorum court justices of the peace
The opinion is a clean restatement of your authority. You set the number and compensation; you cannot delegate that to a subcommittee, a personnel board, or the elected official's discretion. Subordinate bodies can recommend salary changes but the quorum court has to pass the ordinance.
If a question of an "improper raise" comes to your attention, you have two options the AG identifies:
- Pass an ordinance going forward at the higher rate, treating the unauthorized portion as a payroll error to be reconciled separately.
- Pass an ordinance ratifying the higher amount retroactively, which converts the improper payments into properly authorized ones.
County judges
You have a veto over salary appropriations and you have administrative-execution duties, but you do not have substantive salary-setting authority. Vetoing an appropriation ordinance can stop a raise, but the quorum court can override with a three-fifths vote. If an override happens, you are obligated to execute the appropriation; you cannot use your administrative role to re-adjust salaries the quorum court has set.
County HR and payroll staff
Before processing a salary change for any employee of an elected county official, look for a quorum court ordinance that (a) sets the position's salary and (b) appropriates the funds. If you cannot find both, push it back. Paying without authority exposes the county to clawback litigation, and the employee may have to repay the overage from past paychecks.
County attorneys advising on a disputed raise
The opinion gives you a clean rule for the cleanest case: raise given without ordinance equals no county liability for the higher amount, employee reverts to last properly set salary. For messier cases, the AG explicitly declined to opine. If the procedural defect is internal to the quorum court (improper notice, missing quorum, agenda defect), the analysis turns on the specific defect and whether the underlying ordinance is voidable rather than void. Pull the meeting record before advising.
Common questions
Q: My county tax collector wants to give a longtime deputy a raise. Can the collector just adjust the payroll?
No. Even if the collector's annual office budget could absorb it, only the quorum court can set salaries for county employees and appropriate the money. The collector can ask the quorum court to pass an appropriation ordinance for the new amount; that's the path.
Q: An employee has been getting a "raise" for six months that was never voted on by the quorum court. What happens to that money?
Going forward, the county should stop paying the higher amount and revert to the last properly set salary. For the past six months of overpayments, the county may have a recovery claim and the employee may face a payroll correction. Whether the county actually pursues recovery is a separate policy question; the AG opinion only addresses what the county is legally required to do, which is fund the salary that was properly set and appropriated.
Q: Can the quorum court fix this by passing an ordinance now that covers the past payments?
Yes. The quorum court can ratify an improperly increased salary by passing an ordinance that sets and appropriates the higher amount. Whether the ratification is purely prospective or also covers the prior payments depends on how the ordinance is written. County counsel should make sure the ordinance addresses both the past period and the going-forward salary explicitly.
Q: Does the county judge have any salary-setting authority?
No. The county judge presides over the quorum court without a vote (with veto power) and administers appropriations. The judge cannot raise or lower a salary that the quorum court did not set, and cannot use the veto as a positive instrument to set a lower or different salary. The most the judge can do unilaterally is prevent a raise from taking effect by vetoing the appropriation ordinance, which the quorum court can then override.
Q: What about a board or committee that the county has set up to review and recommend raises?
A subordinate body can recommend; only the quorum court can set and appropriate. If your county has a personnel or finance committee that "approves" raises, that committee's action is at most a recommendation. The raise is not effective until the full quorum court passes an ordinance.
Q: What if the elected official insists they have spending authority because the salary line is in their office budget?
The AG opinion does not bite on that argument. Quorum court authority over salaries is constitutional (Amendment 55) and statutory (A.C.A. § 14-14-1203), and a budget allocation is not a substitute for an appropriation ordinance setting the individual position's salary. Even where an office has discretion over operational spending, individual employee compensation has to go through the quorum court.
Background and statutory framework
The constitutional foundation is Arkansas Constitution Amendment 55, § 4, which gives the quorum court "the power to ... fix the number and compensation of deputies and county employees." Amendment 55, § 3 makes the county judge preside over the quorum court without a vote but with veto power, and the quorum court can override a veto by three-fifths of the total membership.
The statutory implementation is in Title 14 (Counties). The key sections the opinion relies on:
- A.C.A. § 14-14-801(a)(b)(6) authorizes the quorum court to "exercise local legislative authority" concerning the "fix[ing] [of] the number and compensation of deputies and county employees."
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1206(a) directs that "[t]he quorum court of each county shall, by ordinance, fix the number and compensation of all county employees."
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(a) requires that "[a]ll compensation, including salary, hourly compensation, expense allowances, and other remunerations, allowed to any county or township officer, or employee thereof, shall be made only on specific appropriation by the quorum court."
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(b) defines "compensation" broadly to include "salary, hourly compensation, expense allowances, training expenses, and other remuneration."
- A.C.A. § 14-14-907(b) lets the quorum court "adopt, amend, or repeal an appropriation ordinance which incorporates by reference the provisions of any county budget or portion of a county budget, or any amendment thereof," which is the statutory hook for ratifying or amending earlier appropriations.
The leading case is Venhaus v. Pulaski County Quorum Court, 291 Ark. 558, 726 S.W.2d 668, order clarified, 292 Ark. 296, 729 S.W.2d 13 (1987). Venhaus holds that the quorum court has sole authority over county-employee compensation and that this authority cannot be delegated. Beaumont v. Adkisson, 267 Ark. 511, 593 S.W.2d 11 (1980), establishes that the county judge executes the quorum court's appropriations as an administrative officer rather than setting compensation directly.
The opinion ties these threads together with the basic ratification rule from agency and legislative practice: an entity with the final authority to do something can also retroactively legitimize an unauthorized act of the same kind, but the ratification has to be a real exercise of that authority, not an after-the-fact rubber stamp.
Citations
- Ark. Const. amend. 55, §§ 3, 4
- A.C.A. § 14-14-801(a)(b)(6)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1206(a)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(a), (b)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-907(b)
- Venhaus v. Pulaski County Quorum Court, 291 Ark. 558, 726 S.W.2d 668 (1987)
- Beaumont v. Adkisson, 267 Ark. 511, 593 S.W.2d 11 (1980)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 81-038
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2004-024
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2004-358
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2015-020
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2018-013
- Black's Law Dictionary 1607 (12th ed. 2024) (definition of "salary")
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-011
March 14, 2025
The Honorable Stephanie Flowers
State Senator
217 South Main Street
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601
Dear Senator Flowers:
I am writing in response to your request for my opinion concerning the procedures for county
employee salary increases. You specifically ask three questions:
1. What is the process for increasing the salaries of employees of elected county officials—
such as employees of the county judge, tax collector, and circuit clerk?
Brief response: As discussed further in the opinion, the county quorum court has the sole
authority to set and appropriate increases in the salaries of employees of
elected county officials. And while the county judge may veto a quorum
court’s decision to increase county-employee salaries, the quorum court
may override that veto.
2. If an employee’s salary was improperly increased, how much of the salary should the
county fund: none of it, the salary before the improper increase, or the improperly increased
salary?
Brief response: If the increase was improper because someone gave a salary increase
without the quorum court’s appropriation or setting of the salary increase,
then the county would not fund any of that increase until the quorum court
passes an ordinance appropriating and setting the increase. The employee
would still receive the salary he or she was making before the improper
increase if that salary was already set and appropriated by the quorum
court.
3. Can the quorum court ratify an improperly increased salary?
Brief response: Yes. The Honorable Stephanie Flowers
State Senator
Opinion No. 2025-011
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Question 1: What is the process for increasing the salaries of employees of elected county
officials—such as employees of the county judge, tax collector, and circuit clerk?
One cannot increase the salaries of county employees of elected county officials without the
quorum court’s approval.1 It is the county quorum court that has the sole authority both to set the
salaries of county officials and employees and to appropriate the funds for those increases.2
Although the applicable statutes do not define “salary,”3 that word commonly means
“compensation for services … [usually] paid at regular intervals on a yearly basis.”4 But
“compensation” more broadly includes “salary, hourly compensation, expense allowances,
training expenses, and other remuneration.”5 This also means that any county board or committee
that reviews and recommends county employee pay raises to the quorum court could still
recommend such increases but could not themselves set and appropriate them because only the
quorum court as a whole can do that.6
The county judge can then execute the quorum court’s appropriations as an administrative officer.7
But a county judge cannot raise or lower a salary that is not authorized by the quorum court’s
ordinance setting and appropriating those funds.8 And while the county judge has veto power over
such quorum court decisions,9 the quorum court can override the veto.10 If the county judge vetoes
1 See Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 4.
2 Id. (providing that “the Quorum Court shall have the power to … fix the number and compensation of deputies and
county employees”); A.C.A. §§ 14-14-801(a)(b)(6) (authorizing the quorum court to “exercise local legislative
authority” concerning the “fix[ing] [of] the number and compensation of deputies and county employees”), 14-14-
1206(a) (“The quorum court of each county shall, by ordinance, fix the number and compensation of all county
employees”), 14-14-1203(a) (“All compensation, including salary, hourly compensation, expense allowances, and
other remunerations, allowed to any county or township officer, or employee thereof, shall be made only on specific
appropriation by the quorum court ….”); Venhaus v. Pulaski Cnty. Quorum Ct., 291 Ark. 558, 563, 726 S.W.2d 668,
670, order clarified, 292 Ark. 296, 729 S.W.2d 13 (1987); Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-020.
3 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2018-013.
4 Salary, Black’s Law Dictionary 1607 (12th ed. 2024).
5 See A.C.A. § 14-14-1203(b).
6 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-024.
7 Beaumont v. Adkisson, 267 Ark. 511, 515, 593 S.W.2d 11, 14 (1980); see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-358.
8 See Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 4.
9 See Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 3 (providing that the county judge “preside[s] over the Quorum Court without a vote
but with the power of veto”); Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 81-038.
10 Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 4 (providing that the quorum court has “the power to override the veto of the County
Judge by a vote of three-fifths of the total membership”); Venhaus, 291 Ark. at 561, 726 S.W.2d at 669. The Honorable Stephanie Flowers
State Senator
Opinion No. 2025-011
Page 3
an appropriation ordinance, and the quorum court does not override the veto, the vetoed ordinance
does not take effect, and the county judge would not have an appropriation to spend from.11
Question 2: If an employee’s salary was improperly increased, how much of the salary should
the county fund: none of it, the salary before the improper increase, or the improperly increased
salary?
The answer depends on how the salary was improperly increased. If the increase was improper
because someone gave a salary increase without the quorum court’s appropriation or setting of the
salary increase, then the county would not fund any of that increase until the quorum court passes
an ordinance appropriating and setting the increase.12 The employee would still receive the salary
the employee was making before the improper increase if that salary were already set and
appropriated by the quorum court. But to the extent that the increase was improper because of
some other deficiency that has nothing to do with quorum court review and approval, I lack the
facts to definitely conclude how much of the salary the county should fund.
Question 3: Can the quorum court ratify an improperly increased salary?
Because the quorum court has the authority to set the salaries of county employees (including
issuing raises),13 it also has the final authority to set and approve the salaries of county employees
including any increases in salary. Quorum courts cannot delegate this authority.14 A quorum court
may “adopt, amend, or repeal an appropriation ordinance which incorporates by reference the
provisions of any county budget or portion of a county budget, or any amendment thereof.”15
Thus, while the quorum court may ratify an improperly increased salary—like one that did not
legally go through the quorum court—such a raise is not valid unless and until the quorum court
lawfully appropriates and approves it.
Assistant Attorney William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
11 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 81-038.
12 See, e.g., Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 4; Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-024.
13 Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 4; A.C.A. §§ 14-14-801(a)(b)(6), 14-14-1206(a), 14-14-1203(a).
14 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-024.
15 A.C.A. § 14-14-907(b).