Can a county quorum court redirect money from the treasurer's commission fund to another department without the treasurer's consent?

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

State Senator Jake Files asked whether a county quorum court could transfer money out of the county treasurer's commission fund, the account that holds the 2% commission treasurers collect on funds passing through their hands, to the county IT department, when the treasurer's office said it doesn't use IT's services and hadn't consented to the transfer.

The Attorney General declined to answer. The statute limits use of the commission fund to the treasurer's own "administrative costs," but the opinion found the underlying facts were both more complicated than the request described and actively disputed: some documents suggested the money was to be paid under a county contract the treasurer's office itself had recommended for funding, under which the treasurer's office was supposed to receive services, and some parties maintained the treasurer's office did in fact benefit from IT's services under that contract. Because the Attorney General's office has no authority or resources to act as a fact-finder in resolving opinion requests, and because a news account indicated a county official might sue over the dispute (triggering the office's long-standing policy against opining on matters headed to litigation), the office concluded it could not render an opinion.

Background and analysis (as of 2013)

Arkansas law lets county treasurers collect a 2% commission on funds passing through their hands, deposited into a dedicated county treasurer's commission fund that state law says "shall be used by the treasurer to offset administrative costs." The opinion explained that whether a particular quorum court appropriation from that fund counts as an "administrative cost" of the treasurer's office is inherently fact-specific, turning on exactly what the money was spent on and whether the treasurer's office actually benefited.

Here, the opinion found the background facts genuinely contested: while the senator's request framed the dispute as the quorum court unilaterally diverting funds without the treasurer's consent or any service being rendered, other documents and news accounts suggested the transfer was tied to a contract the treasurer's office had itself recommended, with services flowing back to that office, a characterization other parties in the dispute apparently disputed. Because the Attorney General's office isn't authorized or equipped to resolve factual disputes when issuing opinions, and separately because the office maintains a policy of declining to weigh in on matters that may become the subject of litigation (out of respect for the judiciary's independent constitutional role), the opinion concluded it could not answer the question as posed.

Citations and references

Statutes (as they stood in 2013):

• A.C.A. § 21-6-302(a), (b), the county treasurer's 2% commission collection and deposit into the county treasurer's commission fund
• A.C.A. § 21-6-302(c), limiting use of the fund to offsetting the treasurer's administrative costs

Source

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

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUSTIN McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2013-151

December 17, 2013

The Honorable Jake Files
State Senator

300 Free Ferry Landing
Fort Smith, Arkansas 72903

Dear Senator Files:
This is my opinion on your question about a quorum court's authority over the

county treasurer's commission fund.1 The law provides that money in the fund
"shall be used by the treasurer to offset administrative costs."2

You state as background:

A Quorum Court voted to transfer money from the Treasurer's
Commission fund to the County Information Department (IT). The
Treasurer's office is not tied to the IT Dept and does not use their services.

Your question is:

Can a Quorum Court take money out of the Treasurer's Commission fund
without the Treasurer's permission and without services being rendered
for the Treasurer's department?

I note initially that your request arises from an actual dispute among county
officials. You and others provided me documents and citations to news accounts

1 With some exceptions, county treasurers "collect, as a treasurer's commission, two percent (2%) on all
funds coming into their hands as treasurers," which money is "paid into the county treasury to the credit of
the county treasurer's commission fund." A.C.A. § 21-6-302(a), (b) (Supp. 2013).

2 A.C.A. § 21-6-302(c).

323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 * LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 * FAX (501) 682-8084
INTERNET WEBSITE * http://www.ag.state.ar.us/

The Honorable Jake Files
State Senator

Opinion No. 2013-151
Page 2

that indicate that the relevant facts may be considerably more complicated than
those stated as background in your opinion request and recited above. Some of the
relevant facts may be in dispute. In particular, it appears that the money at issue is
proposed to be paid under a county contract which the treasurer and other county
officials recommended to the quorum court for funding and implementation and
under which the treasurer's office was or is to receive services. And some parties
apparently maintain that the treasurer does in fact receive services from the IT
Department funded under the contract.

Whether a quorum court's appropriation of money from a treasurer's commission
fund is for "administrative costs" of the treasurer's office is a fact-intensive
question whose answer will vary depending on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. I have neither the resources nor the statutory charge or authority to
act as a finder of fact in connection with rendering written opinions. Because the
question actually underlying your opinion request is so fact-intensive, and because
the facts are unclear and apparently in dispute, I cannot render an opinion
answering the question.

I note finally that one news account quotes a county official as saying she may
commence litigation over the issue. My office has a long-standing policy against
issuing opinions on questions that are the subject of current or impending
litigation.3 The policy recognizes the judiciary's independent constitutional role.
Any opinion from my office on the underlying legal issues in this instance would
amount to executive comment on matters that may well come before a court.

Assistant Attorney General J. M. Barker prepared this opinion, which I approve.
Sincerely,

DUSTIN McDANIEL
Attorney General

DM:JMB/cyh

3 See, e.g., Op. Att'y Gen. 2013-019, 2007-243.