The Honorable Jim Stallcup Prosecuting Attorney Third Judicial District 225 E. Elm, P.O. Box 627 Walnut Ridge, AR 72476
Dear Mr. Stallcup:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the following questions regarding Ordinance No. 1986-499 of the City of Walnut Ridge, Arkansas:
1. Section 1 outlines the mayor's salary to be determined by his working hours "full-time or part-time," yet when a candidate files for the position, there are no specific guidelines.
2. Section 2 outlines the 8 to 5 hours for a full-time mayor. Can a city ordinance allow the mayor to leave his responsibilities to the city alone after 5 p.m.?
3. Section 2 calls for the mayor to eliminate any outside activity for financial gain, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Can a city ordinance require a mayor to eliminate all sources of financial gain?
4. Section 5 requires an elected mayor to inform the city council, after an election, if it is his intention to be full or part-time. Can a mayor, after election, inform the people what he was actual running for (full-time or part-time)?
I will address questions 1 and 4 together, as they both focus on the election process. Both questions are prompted, it seems, by the fact that the determination of whether the office holder will serve as a "full-time mayor" or a "part-time mayor" is made by the successful candidate after the election. Thus the question, restated, is whether the office must be designated as "full-time" or "part-time" prior to the election.
It is my opinion that this determination should be made prior to the election. While the powers and duties of the mayor may change during the term of office,1 the problem in this instance is that by giving the mayor-elect the choice of whether to work "full-time" or "part-time," the city council has arguably relinquished its authority to prescribe the powers and duties of the office. The office is, it seems, being defined by the office-holder. This could give rise to an unlawful delegation argument; e.g., the city council may prescribe the mayor's duties, to the extent those duties are not inconsistent with state law, but it cannot delegate this function to the office-holder.2
The same argument also applies with respect to the salary in this instance. It might be contended that by giving the successful candidate the choice after the election, the city council has not met its constitutional duty to set the mayor's salary. Amendment
With regard to your second question involving Section 2 of Walnut Ridge Ordinance No. 1986-499, it must be initially noted that this question may require interpretation of the Ordinance, a function that does not ordinarily fall within the scope of an Attorney General opinion. Construction of the Ordinance is a matter to be addressed by the city attorney, or other local counsel to whom the city usually looks for advice.
As a general matter, however, I would note that Section 2 does not on its face appear to suggest that the mayor is authorized to refuse to perform any duties after 5:00 p.m. The section defines a "full-time" mayor as one "who works full-time at mayoral duties from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. . . ." It does not state that there are no duties required after 5:00 p.m. Indeed, such a provision would likely be subject to challenge as prescribing duties incompatible with the nature of the office. See A.C.A. §§
It is therefore my opinion that the answer to your second question is in all likelihood "no." A city cannot by ordinance permit a mayor to refuse to perform any duties or exercise any responsibilities after 5:00 p.m. As indicated above, however, it is my belief that the measure in question does not on its face constitute such an ordinance. As also stated, however, this may involve a question of interpretation which is properly referred to local counsel.
In response to your third question, it is my opinion that the vagueness of this provision may generate a constitutional challenge. The question is whether this language gives adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited. See generally Buel v.Dardanelle Public School Dist. No. 15,
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:EAW/cyh
