Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
English
French
Spanish
VietnameseRegistration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The records provided for review are mixed records. The emails constitute the personnel records of the listed employees, and nothing within them, if released, would amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, the custodian’s decision to release the emails is consistent with the FOIA. The documents entitled “Supervisory Evaluation Form,” “Administrative Evaluation Form,” “Officer Resume,” and “Concise Officer History” appear to be the evaluation records of the named employees. The custodian’s decision to withhold the evaluation records of those employees who were neither suspended nor terminated is consistent with the FOIA. And the custodian’s decision to release the records of suspended or terminated employees is also consistent with the FOIA, provided that the remaining prongs of the four-part test for release of evaluation records have been satisfied. When redacting public records, custodians must fully obscure all exempt information and clearly indicate that redactions have been made. Because the records provided mark only where redactions are intended, I cannot determine whether the proposed redactions comply with the FOIA. It remains the custodian’s responsibility to ensure all redactions comply with the statute. Finally, the basis for some proposed redactions is unclear. Under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B), if responsive records are subject to exemptions, the custodian must identify the applicable exemptions. Determinations regarding which records are responsive to a FOIA request fall outside the scope of my statutory review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
Question 1: Under Arkansas law, if a hearing is requested, would the hearing properly be conducted by the court or the sheriff’s office on behalf of the court?
Brief Response: If a debtor requests an administrative hearing under A.C.A. § 26-36-310(a), either the Garland County Circuit Court or the Garland County Sheriff’s Office may conduct the administrative hearing as the claimant agency.
Question 2: Pursuant to A.C.A. §§ 26-36-309 and -310, if the validity of the debt and the amount are the only relevant issues to be considered at the hearing, and if the amount is not correct, an adjustment shall be made:
(a) In the event that the sheriff’s office is authorized to conduct the hearing, what authority does the sheriff’s office have to adjust a prior court order setting fines and fees?
(b) In the event that the court conducts the hearing, is the court’s authority to make an adjustment limited to correcting errors in the calculation of the amount owed, such as credits or debits inaccurately recorded, or may the court reduce, waive, or eliminate previously ordered fines and fees for reasons other than correcting errors?
Brief Response: The hearing officer’s authority is restricted to correcting errors in the calculation of the amount owed. The hearing officer may not reduce, waive, or eliminate previously ordered fines and fees for any other reason.
Question 3: Under Arkansas law, is there a deadline for the agency to conduct a hearing after it has been requested, and if so, what is the applicable deadline?
Brief Response: There is no specific deadline in A.C.A. §§ 26-36-301 through -321 for the claimant agency to conduct an administrative hearing after it has been requested.
Question 4: Further, if a court conducts the hearing, should the hearing proceed through the existing criminal case in which the fines and fees were originally assessed, and a record be maintained in that case, or should it be conducted through a separate, administrative proceeding?
Brief Response: The administrative hearing should proceed through an administrative process that is separate from the criminal case in which fines and fees were assessed.
Question 5: In the event of a hearing, what procedures should be used to conduct the hearing, and what is the standard of proof?
Brief Response: Sections 26-36-301 through -321 do not prescribe specific procedures for conducting these administrative hearings. The applicable standard of proof for an administrative hearing is a preponderance of the evidence.
Question 6: In the event of a hearing, does the Administrative Procedure Act apply?
Brief Response: Yes. Under A.C.A. § 26-36-310(a), the claimant agency “shall grant a hearing according to procedures established under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act.”
Question 7: If the sentencing court is the same court that conducts the hearing, is there any conflict of interest or appearance of impartiality that should be of concern to the hearing judge?
Brief Response: Absent additional circumstances, the same person acting as the circuit court judge and then as the hearing officer does not create a conflict of interest or an appearance of bias.
Question 8: What is the applicable statute of limitations to use the setoff procedure authorized by A.C.A. § 26-36-301, et seq.? May this procedure be used to collect fines and fees that are more than five years old, but remain unpaid and uncollected?
Brief Response: Neither the ten-year nor the five-year statutes of limitations apply to criminal judgments for fines and costs. Accordingly, the county may continue to use the state income tax refund setoff procedures under A.C.A. §§ 26-36-301 through -321 until the criminal judgments for fines and costs are satisfied.
Question 1: What is the deadline for a petition to change the form of the City of Fort Smith’s government pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-48-105(b)(1)(A)(i) to be presented to the mayor in order for the proposition to be on the ballot in November 2026?
Brief Response: To ensure placement of the measure on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot, the petition must be presented to the mayor—and the resulting proclamation filed with the county clerk—no later than August 25, 2026.
Question 2: Assuming the proposition to change the city’s form of government to the mayor-council form is on the ballot in November 2026 and the proposition is approved by the voters, when would the election for the required officials under the new form of government (mayor-council) be held?
Brief Response: The mayor, city clerk, and city council members would be elected at the November 2028 general election. The city attorney and city treasurer, however, would be elected at the November 2030 general election unless the city adopts an ordinance under A.C.A. § 14-43-303(a)(3), providing that the mayor, city clerk, city attorney, and city treasurer shall be elected on the same date and every four years thereafter. If the city adopts such an ordinance, those offices may also be filled at the November 2028 election.
