*1 The SEBASTIAN COUNTY CHAPTER THE OF
AMERICAN RED v. Wanda CROSS WEATHERFORD 92-403 846 Court of Arkansas
Supreme delivered Opinion February Hardin, Jesson, Dawson Terry, & Rex Terry, M. by: for appellant.
Oscar Stilley, for appellee. Brown, L. Robert Justice. This case concerns the Freedom Act, of Information and the a issue appeal presents single ground consideration: whether a lease between the Fort Smith аnd the the Sebastian appellant, County Chapter Cross, American Red wherein City charges Red Cross one- by public as support qualifies lease payment, dollar-per-year *2 finding that the it We hold that did. court found circuit funds. The erroneous, and remand. we reverse and clearly was of on Board Directors Fort Smith meeting the At the a lease authorizing was a adopted resolution December The agreement the Red Cross. the and City between agreement Red Cross for lease a lot to the would City that the provided It fee of one dollar. annual rental with an years thirty period construc- Cross would commencе that the Red further provided building would revert for its and that the building of a offices tion of the lease. the expiration to the City upon Weatherford, 8, 1992, Wanda the January appellee, On Cross, an seeking opportunity Red directed a the request documents” its possession. and all “inspect copy non-privilеged filed a Red denied the and Weatherford request, Cross Freedom of Informa- disclosure under the Arkansas for petition funding. lease public Act basis that the constituted tion on the Cross received federal also that American Red She contended the to the circuit no of that fact was funding, presented but рroof court. building that the was
The Red Cross answered and asserted that at expense the leased at its own constructed on property building the of the lease term the expiration improvements the The Red Cross also would the City. become property or an agency that it was not a emphasized public by public funds or “wholly partially supported expending Ann. funds” within the of Ark. Code 25-19-103 public § Further, Weather- 1992). the Red Cross contended that (Repl. related to ford was the FOIA as a for using replacement discovery had certain Red Cross officials. against a civil action it pending that, stand- hearing, At a the subsequent pаrties stipulated rental alone, $1.00 be less than a reasonable ing year would per to a hearing, Also at reference value for the leased the property. lots, value of three establishing was the appraisal introduced at the land question, one-half which constitutes leased $62,500. the was an аrgued Cross lease Counsel Red arms-length transaction1 in that the ultimately gain would $60,000 the constructed Red Cross building valued at in 1983 had the use of the conference room in the public building. He argued also that the rental did one-dollar-per-year payment qualify as funds. support public Following hearing, the circuit an reсognized court entered order which it first that the lease the Red building Cross build a and that required might obtain substantial benefit from the lease. public The court then found the fair market value leased was property $1 “substantially more than per and that year” lease funds, constituted a partial support expenditurе of funds under 25-19-103. Accordingly, court ordered Red Cross to open its records non-exempt for inspection *3 to the pursuant FOIA. Act,
The Arkansas of Freedom Information Ark. Code Ann. 1992), 25-19-101 —25-19-107 (Repl. was originally enacted as § Act 93 of 1967. legislative intent behind the FOIA is stated at Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-102 1992): (Repl. §
It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed open manner so that public electors shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity end, in making public Toward policy. this this chapter is adopted, making them, it for or possible their representatives learn and to report fully the activities of their public officials.
We have stated
that
repeatedly
the FOIA should be
liberally construed
order to
accomplish
Act’s laudable
See,
Mars,
purposes.
Bryant
480,
v.
e.g.,
309 Ark.
830 S.W.2d
(1992);
869
Fayetteville
Edmark,
179,
v.
304 Ark.
801
of
S.W.2d 275 (1990); North Central Assoc.
&
Colleges Schools
Inc.,
v.
379,
Troutt Bros.
261 Ark.
548 S.W.2d
(1977);
McCord,
Laman v.
and we do Co., Mut. Ins. Liberty Bank v. First Nat’l Simmons supra; Ark. “all public and copying to inspection
The FOIA opens 1992). As 25-19-105(a) (Repl. Ark. Code Ann. records.” § 25-19-103(1) 1992), “public (Repl. Code Ark. Ann. by defined “required by documentation and other writings means records” recоrd of a and which constitute or otherwise kept, law to be kept functions of official of performance lack the performance employee, officialor by be out public are or should carried which wholly or agency partially or other any a governmental agency, publiс (Empha by expending public supported funds.” funds sis supplied.) been drawn narrowly issue in this has appeal is, court, what constitutes support by and the circuit
parties funds,” term which is We focus first on the “public funds? The definition in Black’s Law given not defined in FOIA. (1990), “Moneys belonging government, 6th ed. is Dictionary, it,of official.” Case law cited in hands аny department is to the present of this definition relevant support Black’s In Droste,a Kerner, N.E.2d 73 (Ill. 1966). case. See Droste v. of land legislature’s conveyance attacked the Illinois taxpayer the basis Michigan beneath Lake to U.S. Steel on of a submerged funds” statute that the “disbursement” of prohibited “public *4 stаte officials. The Illinois Court moneys” by Supreme “public the rejected attempt affirmed the trial court and to taxpayer’s into funds.” The “public translate 194.6 acres of land court that “the legislature concluded could have real contemplated funds, estate when it referred nor this court torture to рublic may the the of words to arrive at that result.” 217 employed N.E.2d at 78-79.
This court has with several in which private dealt instances funds, and we entities have received in cases have those public Edmark, Fayetteville the FOIA. See applied City supra; v. of Bros, Inc., North Ass’n & Troutt Colleges Central Schools v. of Rehab. Serviсes Health supra; Hospital Corp. v. Delta-Hills Inc., (1985). Ark. In Systems, Agency, S.W.2d Edmark, outside were City Fayetteville supra, attorneys v. of in for their Records their and the work. employed paid by City disclosure, were held to be to FOIA subject possession part had been hired and attorney because in lieu they city paid with funds. public сase, An earlier North Central Ass’n & Schools Colleges of Bros, Inc.,
v. a suit Troutt involved over the exclusion of a supra, from a state of the North Central Association reporter meeting of Schools, Colleges and an sets educational standards and policies colleges secondary schools. Dues from the Arkansas schools the Although NCA. supported was a private, association a factor stressed nonprofit corporation, this court in was applying FOIA that over 90% of the money contributed Arkansas schools to the NCA was public money. case,
In another still the Delta-Hills Systems Health Inc. had been Agency, created under federal law assist the Arkansas State Health Planning Development Agency regional review certain proposed changes health care. Rehab Services Hospital Corp. Delta-Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc., 397, 400, S.W.2d source of primary funding for Delta-Hills HSA was the federal government, which we held to be funding. Becausе public this, HSA, we concluded that Delta-Hills though private, corporation, was nonprofit subject the FOIA.
All of these cases dealt with direct funding some sort catalyst as the for the application FOIA. None these cases the term expanded funds” to “public embrace indirect benefit conveyed by government upon organization. a private case,
In the we present are mindful that under Lease Agreement the will at some fall point heir to the Red Cross and, thus, building receive the benefit of this improvement that in the interim the use public has of the Red Cross conference However, room. we do not decidе this case on that The plain basis. language of FOIA confirms that the General Assembly intended direct funding be As required. previously noted, the FOIA applies private entities wholly “supported in part funds.” by public Had the General intended to Assembly *5 extend the FOIA to private organizations that any receive form of governmеnt assistance indirect, no subsidy, matter how it would not used have the words “supported ... funds” by public the Act. trigger to necessary of support the nature to describe or subsi benefits government read indirect Refusal to liberal not at odds with a funds” is term “public dies into the funds” to we to construe “public FOIA. Were of the constructiоn of government and new category entirely separate include an to its amending applica the FOIA expand we would be support, contains the Arkansas Code For example, tion significantly. to locate in to induce businesses as incentives designed statutes for industrial the use of such devices Arguably, thе state. indirect sup constitutes or other purposes development so, intend the without Assembly, saying Did the General port. receive to which organizations of the FOIA all private application benefit, no how minor? We think not. matter government some therefore, We, as we a common sense adopt approach, Mars, funds” its v. and the term Bryant supra, “public did best evidenced Black’s which is ordinary plain belonging the definition to Dictionary “moneys govern Law Here, was made to the government moneys ment.” no payment FOIA should Red Cross and the concomitant application do, deciding In as we we resist thе transpire. temptation See legislate judicially. Ragland Yeargan, do, however, We that all records (1986). recognize Agreement to the Lease between the and the Red pertaining Cross were available to Weatherford an FOIA through request City.
Reversed and remanded for an order consistent with this oрinion. J., dissents.
Dudley, Wanda Dudley, Robert H. Justice. The plaintiff-appellee, Weatherford, filed a Sebas- request defendant-appellant, Cross, County tian of the American Red Chapter “inspect all documents” in its copy non-privileged request possession. was filed under the Freedom of authority Arkansas Information Act. The local denied the chapter request. field suit in circuit court for the information. plaintiff-appellee gives The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act a citizen right of access to records. Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105 “Public records” are the records of any *6 Ark. Code “wholly supported by public is or partially funds.” (1) (1987) added). (emphasis Ann. 25-19-103 that the received subsidy The trial court held local chapter Smith, and, from the of Fort since it was City partially supported funds, obligation the was under an to disclose its chapter by records. The reverses majority the trial non-privileged opinion and, for all dismisses the ruling practical сourt’s purposes, request. 1983,
In of Fort Smith a lot to the leased the Sebastian City of the American Red Cross for County thirty years for Chapter dollar is fair year. undisputed one It that the rental value per Thus, lot is more than one is per year. dollar it substantially without has been and will to dispute City continue local the Red Crоss. The partially support chapter majority holds that the opinion partial support provided is not in the form because it is only funds benefit,” “indirect and it is not “money.”
The to the subsidy given local is not an chapter “indirect benefit.” It is be Nothing direct. more need said.
The majority statutory construes the opinion рhrase “public funds” to exclude a governmental by rental value. The subsidy majority does so opinion by holding phrase “wholly partially supported by public funds” means wholly partially supported by belonging government.” to the “moneys
Without the word is inclusive of question, “public” govern ment property. only question is whether the word “funds” includes a subsidy rental value. The answer to the is question in our found rules of statutory interpretation. primary goal is interpretation of statutes to determine give effect State, the intent of the General Assembly. Sanders 310 Ark. 630, 839 S.W.2d (1992). In determining that intent we Bonds, words their usual ordinary Bob meaning. Cole Bail Howard, Inc. v. 307 Ark. 684 (1991). Finally, S.W.2d have we stated that the repeatedly Freedom of Information Act should be construed in order liberally accomplish the act’s See, Mars, laudable purpose. e.g., Bryant v. W.2d
S. An examination facts of of the this case in the light above rules construction reveals the fault in the majority opinion. Intent
Legislative if a govеrnmen- majority opinion, the rationale Under *7 $1,000 that other organization, to another bill gives tal entity However, if records. disclose its relevant must organization another in value to subsidize millions entity gives governmental not have to disclose its does organization organization, form of be in the might These subsidies exemрt relevant records. services, check or warrant or in the form of a or labor or or goods bond, or lease of either in the form of a conveyance draft or or so as it is not long “money.” or real personal property anything — intent. legislative with the Such a is not at all keeping rationalе of Words Meaning And Ordinary Usual “Where do you keep If one were to ask an ordinary person, be, be, bank,” funds?”, “In or it might might the answer your estate, stocks, bonds, some real and some “Partly partly A is not money. cash.” Funds in the bank are a credit. credit only having one’s funds in stocks and bonds would also be one’s Having “Funds” is the something monеy. plural funds in other than “fund.” means a of material resources maintained Fund quantity or source of Websters International available as a supply. (3d 1961). ed. On the other hand the word Dictionary has a more limited definition. means a medium “money” Money (3d Websters International ed. exchange. Dictionary Lambert, 1961); See аlso Ark. Quinn-Moore is the unit monetary dollar Thus, constitutes the medium of in the exchange United States. limits the majority opinion “partially phrase funds,” to supported by public partially supported by United short, States dollars. In majority opinion give does word “funds” its ordinary meaning. usual and
Construction To Act’s Accomplish Purpose lease, In this case the over the has City, period given will to the local the fair value of the lot rental chapter that exceeds one dollar The amount of this is year. gift per determinable. It is a that causes a monetarily subsidy depletion just funds as as if the were dollar certainly subsidy gives meaning bills. A construction that to the laudable purposes of the Act would disclosure that is require services, goods, partially supported by public property, just as as it does one dollars. surely supported by public I dissent.
Accordingly,
Frank GIACONA v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 92-1202
Supreme delivered Opinion February *8 Lambert, for Craig appellant. Gen., Bryant, Moll,
Winston Att’y by: Sandy Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Per Curiam. was convicted of Appellant He filed a felony. motion for а new trial. The trial court did not rule on the motion within thirty days, did not appellant give a notice of at appeal that time. Some motion, months later the trial court denied the notice of appellant gave within appeal thirty days ruling. The court of dismissed appeals for failure to appeal State, a timely notice of Giacona appeal. App. 839 S.W.2d Appellant has filed a petition review in this court.