AAC
SEEMS TO ME ...
Do county officials have a responsibility to stay within budget?
T
he short answer to the question is “yes.” A county official is responsible for staying within his or her budget — the appropriation provided by the quorum court. There also is a responsibility to live within the cash available at any given time. A budget is based on projected revenues expected to come in over a 12-month period. The budget is not based on “cash in the bank” on day one of the year. Some county officials “go over their budgets” very carefully — week after week, month after month making sure they remain in compliance with the constraints of the appropriated funds for their office operations. Other county officials just “go over their budgets.” That should not be. Budgets are real and should be realistic. Jacob Lew, a former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, said in reference to the federal budget, “The budget is not just a collection of numbers, but an expression of our values and aspirations.” The county budget should be the same — not just a collection of numbers, but also an expression of priorities as established by the quorum court. Yes, they get to set the priorities. Some years you may like it — other times — maybe not. But it’s your job as an elected official to work within the financial perimeters set by the court. As the legislative branch of county government, the quorum court is given the authority by the state constitution [Amendment 55] and state law to adopt ordinances necessary for the government of the county, including the adoption of a county budget through an appropriation ordinance as prescribed in Title 14, Chapter 14, Subchapter 9 of Arkansas Code Annotated. U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois in the 1950s and 60s was attributed with saying, “A billion here, a billion there — sooner or later it adds up to real money.” In Arkansas county government we would say, “a thousand here, a thousand there — before long it adds up to real money. County quorum courts should be — in fact must be — in tune with the county’s needs and then be thoughtful and professional in allocating precious financial resources in the form of appropriations so the fiscal affairs of the county are conducted on a sound financial basis in accordance with Arkansas Constitution, Article 12, § 4. It also is the court’s responsibility to properly establish priorities as set forth in § 14-14-802. Each county official and department head must then be diligent in how they expend the appropriated funds for their office to get the best bang for the buck and serve their constituency to the best of their ability under the constraints of the budget given them — the legal limit of their spending. Does the quorum court get to tell a county official how and COUNTY LINES, FALL 2017
for what to expend their appropriation? The simple answer to that question is “no.” While the quorum court should always be concerned with ensuring fiscal responsibility, there is this thing Eddie A. Jones called “separation of powers doctrine.” County Consultant County government is somewhat like state government. County government is comprised of separate branches in order to provide a system of checks and balances. Under the classic division of powers, the legislature [quorum court] makes the laws and appropriates public revenues, the executive branch [county officials] administers the laws and expends the appropriations, and the judiciary interprets the laws. No one questions the power of the quorum court, the legislative branch of county government, to appropriate county funds. However, it does not follow that a legislative body retains the right to administer a previously approved appropriation. The Arkansas Supreme Court recognized this principle of separation of powers in the case of Chaffin v. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (1988). The Arkansas Attorney General has issued several opinions over the years addressing this issue. The opinions cite case law and the separation of powers doctrine. To summarize the conclusion of these opinions, the quorum court may not attach conditions to an appropriation which purport to reserve to the quorum court powers of close supervision that are executive in character. The quorum court cannot do indirectly through means of line item appropriations and conditions what it is impermissible for it to do directly. Line item appropriations become constitutionally impermissible when the authority of the executive branch [county officials] is infringed by legislative control over expenditures. In other words, a county official does not have to come before the quorum court for approval before purchasing equipment or anything else as long as there is a validly adopted existing appropriation by the quorum court for the expenditure. Neither can an appropriation ordinance get into the specifics of requiring that an official buy a specific brand or do business with a specific vendor. Remember, the legislative branch — the quorum court — makes the appropriation. The executive branch — the county officials — administers the appropriation. Many counties have an article/section in their budget ordinance addressing nonrestricted expenditure categories, which basically allows for the transfer between line items in each of See
“BUDGETS” on
Page 20
>>>
19
