Publication Sneak Peek: Our Two Cents

This segment features content from other AAEA publications. Our Two Cents is a monthly publication available to subscribing districts. The following excerpt comes from the January 2025 issue.

Did You Know?

Attorney General Opinion 2024-035

In Attorney General Opinion 2024-035 the AG responded to a question regarding Act 633 of 2023 and returning a school district to local control. Question: Does Act 633 of 2023 apply to the return of a school district to local control? Did the State Board of Education have the authority to reinstate control of a school district to a school board consisting of some members who are popularly elected and some members who are appointed by the Education Commissioner? Did the State Board of Education have the authority to dictate the schedule by which elections would be held for the seats on a school board of a school district being returned to local control, or would that authority rest solely with the newly reinstated school board, regardless whether the school board members were appointed or elected? Once the State Board of Education has returned a school district to local control, when is the earliest that the State Board of Education would then be able to assume authority over that same district again under Arkansas Code Annotated § 6-15-2916? If some or all members of a school board were put in place by appointment of the Education Commissioner rather than by popular election, would the starting point for the timeline for the State Board of Education to again assume authority over that school district be tolled until after all members of the school board were popularly elected by the local community?

The Attorney General responded to the first question – No. Laws are presumed to apply prospectively, not retroactively, unless the text requires otherwise. The relevant actions that Act 633 requires of the State Board would have had to have happened almost three years before Act 633’s effective date. Thus, Act 633 does not apply because it is not retroactive. Regarding question two, as fully explained in the opinion, the Attorney General was unable to opine on this question because the relevant law is unclear and insufficient facts had been presented. As fully explained in the opinion, on question A three, the Attorney General was unable to opine on this question because the relevant law is unclear and insufficient facts had been presented. The analysis will not change on question four because Act 633’s trigger is the State Board’s assumption of authority over a public-school district and is not connected to Act 633’s effective date. Regarding question five, if a public-school district is classified as in need of Level 5 – Intensive support, there is no time restriction on the State Board’s ability to assume authority of the district.