Judges: WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General
Filed Date: 3/26/1997
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Jane Rogers, Director Department of Arkansas Heritage 1500 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Ms. Rogers:
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the legality of certain per diem payments to the chairman of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. You note that A.C.A. §
Is it a conflict of interest for the chairman to certify her own activities undertaken as business of the commission and to receive per diem while conducting such business?
It is my opinion that A.C.A. §
Arkansas Code Annotated §
(g) Members of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission shall serve without compensation, except that they shall be paid, from any moneys available, a per diem allowance of fifty dollars ($50.00) while actually in attendance at meetings of the commission or engaged in business of the commission certified as necessary by the chairman.
(h) In addition to the per diem, members shall be paid a mileage allowance equal to the rate designated for state employees for each mile in traveling from their home and returning.
Section
Arkansas Code Annotated §
[The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission] may, by a majority vote of the total membership of the board cast during its first regularly scheduled meeting of each calendar year, authorize payment to its members of a stipend not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) per meeting attended, and the board members shall receive no other compensation, expense reimbursement, or in lieu of payments except as provided in §
25-16-902 .
Finally, Act 1211 provides that "this act shall be the sole authority for expense reimbursement, per diem and stipends" and that "all laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed." Act 1211 of 1995, §§ 7 10.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that a basic and fundamental rule when considering the effect of statutes is that repeal by implication is not favored and is never allowed except where there is such an invincible repugnancy between the former and later provisions that both cannot stand together. Donoho v. Donoho,
Your letter states that the chairman of the commission is a nationally-recognized high school biology teacher who will be facilitating a week-long session involving a team of fifteen teachers from around the state. You state that the team of teachers, with technical assistance provided by four members of the Natural Heritage Commission and Department of Arkansas Heritage staff, will design biodiversity curriculum materials for use in Arkansas schools. Act 1211 offers no specific guidance in determining what constitutes a "meeting attended" or "official board duties," nor does the act specify who determines what constitutes "official board duties." It does appear that the term "meeting attended" contemplates an actual meeting of the commission. The term "official board duties," however, is not necessarily limited to attendance of commission meetings. Nevertheless, because of the limited information that I have been provided, the determination of whether attendance at the above described "work session" constitutes an "official board duty" is a matter outside the scope of an Attorney General opinion. It is, however, my opinion that applicable law grants the commission broad discretion in determining whether any particular activity is necessary or appropriate to advance the purposes of the commission. A.C.A. §
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Warren T. Readnour.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:WTR/cyh