Walker v. Washington County
| Decision Date | 24 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. CR77-227,CR77-227 |
| Citation | 564 S.W.2d 513,263 Ark. 317 |
| Parties | Sarah WALKER, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Murphy & Carlisle, Fayetteville, for appellant.
Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen. by Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
A jury convicted appellant, the County Tax Collector, on three counts of failing to keep that office open during the hours required by Washington County Quorum Court Ordinance No. 77-10, as amended, and fined her $50 on each count. Appellant first contends that the ordinance which, inter alia, sets office hours for all constitutional offices in Washington County, violates the separation of powers provisions of Article IV of the Arkansas Constitution and Amendment 55 thereto. Appellant states the crux of the issue centers around Amendment 55 of the Ark.Const. (1874) and Act 742 of 1977 clarifying the Amendment.
Ark.Const. Art. IV, § 1 (1874) provides that the state government shall be divided into three departments and § 2 reads that "(n)o person, or collection of persons, being one of these departments, shall exercise any power belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted." § 1 of Amendment 55 provides that "a county, acting through its Quorum Court may exercise local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." Following adoption of the Amendment, Act 742 of 1977 was enacted by our legislature. § 40(d) of that Act, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 17-3502(d) (Supp.1977), provides for the separation of powers in county governments.
Appellant contends that Act 742 of 1977, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 17-3807 (Supp.1977) specifically denies the quorum court legislative power except for those powers enunciated in Amendment 55 and its companion legislation, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 17-3801 (Supp.1977). § 17-3807 provides in pertinent part:
A county exercising local legislative power is subject to the following provisions. These provisions are a prohibition on the legislative power of a county acting other than as provided . . . .
(e) all laws directing or requiring a county government or any officer or employee of a county government to carry out any function or provide any service . . . . (Italics supplied.)
Appellant argues there is no statutory provision expressly granting the quorum court the power to regulate the rendering of county services, as here, by elected officials.
We agree that the quorum court has no legislative powers other than those expressly directed or permitted. § 4 of Amendment 55 provides, inter alia, that "the Quorum Court shall have the power to . . . adopt ordinances necessary for the government of the county." § 17-3801, § 69 of Act 742, provides:
As provided by Amendment No. 55, Section 1, (a) of the Arkansas Constitution, a county government acting through its Quorum Court may exercise local legislative authority not expressly prohibited by the Constitution or by law for the affairs of the county. These powers include, but are not limited to: . . .
(j) provide for any service or performance of any function relating to county affairs; . . .
(m) to exercise other powers, not inconsistent with law, necessary for effective administration of authorized services and functions. . . .
Further, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 17-3802(1)(a) (Supp.1977) (§ 70 of Act 742) provides that the quorum court "shall provide through ordinance for the following necessary services for its citizens:"
(c) real and personal property tax administration, including assessments, collection, and custody of tax proceeds; . . .
(e) all other services prescribed by State law for performance by each of the several elected county officers or departments or county government.
Here the ordinance required all county constitutional offices to be open to serve the public from 8 a. m. until 4:30 p. m. Monday through Friday. The ordinance relates to the performance of appellant in providing necessary services as tax collector to the public and is within the express powers granted the quorum court by the recited provisions of Amendment 55 and Act 742 of 1977....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelke v. State, CA
...elected to put on additional evidence, not that he failed to renew the motion for directed verdict. In Walker v. County of Washington, 263 Ark. 317, 564 S.W.2d 513 (1978), the Arkansas Supreme Court stated, "we consider only appellant's second motion for directed verdict since the first mot......
-
Wilson v. Robinson, 81-1102
...See Henderson v. Russell, 267 Ark. 140, 589 S.W.2d 565 (1979) (anti-nepotism ordinance held constitutional); Walker v. County of Washington, 263 Ark. 317, 564 S.W.2d 513 (1978) (ordinance fixing office hours for elected official's duties held The ordinance and the legislation authorizing it......
-
Wilson v. Robinson, LR-C-80-608 to LR-C-80-610.
...legislative branch of the Pulaski County Government. See: Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 17-4001 to 4014 (Repl.1980). See: Walker v. County of Washington, 263 Ark. 317, 564 S.W.2d 513 (1978) where the Arkansas Supreme Court held, in interpreting a companion section, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 17-3802(1)(a) (Supp.19......
-
Arkansas County v. Burris
...court has held that a quorum court has no legislative powers other than those expressly directed or permitted. Walker v. Washington County, 263 Ark. 317, 564 S.W.2d 513 (1978). Clearly, Arkansas County points to no authority, and we know of none, that expressly directs or permits it to enfo......