dissenting. If the style requirements for enactment of county ordinances, Acts 1977, No. 742, Ch. 5 § 86 [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-4003 (Supp. 1977)] could be read in isolation and without regard to other provisions of “The Arkansas County Government Code,” I would not bother to enter a written disagreement with the majority’s assertion that the nepotism ordinance by using “Be it ordained’ ’ was a substantial compliance with the style requirement of “Be it enacted.” A look at the authorities generally would support the majority view — i.e. In re Senate File 31, 25 Neb. 864 (1889), the term “Be it enacted” was held to be equivalent to “Be it resolved’ ’; Smith v. Jennings, 67 S.C. 324, 45 S.W. 821 (1903), “Be it resolved” was held to be a substantial compliance with a mandatory constitutional requirement of “Be it enacted”; State ex rel v. Dalles City, 72 Or. 337 (1914), the terms “Be it enacted,” “Be it resolved,” and “Be it ordained” were held to be synonymous. In City of Ft. Smith v. Taylor, 228 Ark. 722, 310 S.W. 2d 13 (1958), we held there was no difference in the legal effect of a resolution and an ordinance.
Presumably those who drafted “The Arkansas County Government Code” Acts 1977 No. 742 [Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 17-3101 through 17-4208 (Supp. 1977) had access to the foregoing authorities from other states and the decisions of this court and if the General Assembly wanted to make a distinction between resolutions and ordinances, it has the authority to do so. Now to understand my disagreement with the majority’s substantial compliance view, it is necessary that the following pertinent portions of “The Arkansas County Government Code,” Acts 1977 No. 742, be setforth as follows:
“Ch. 1, § 1 [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-3101 (Supp. 1977)]. This Act constitutes the Arkansas County Government Code.
Ch. 1, § 2(1) [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-3102(1) (Supp. 1977)]. Except when a specific definition is given or a technical interpretation is required, words and phrases used in this title shall be construed according to their ordinary usage in the English language.
Ch. 5, § 84 [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-4001 (Supp. 1977)]. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. — The Legislative power of county government is vested in the Quorum Court of each of the several counties of the State subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution and by State law.
Ch. 5 § 85 [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-4002 (Supp. 1977)]. COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE. —
(7) Legislative Affairs. All legislative affairs of a Quorum Court shall be conducted through the passage of ordinances, resolutions, or motions.
(9) County Ordinance. A county ordinance is hereby defined as an enactment of compulsory law for a Quorum Court which defines and establishes the permanent or temporary organization and system of principals of a county government for the control and conduct of county affairs.
(10) County Resolution. A county resolution is hereby defined as the adoption of a formal statement of policy by a Quorum Court, the subject matter of which would not properly constitute an ordinance. A resolution may be used whenever the Quorum Court wishes merely to express an opinion as to some matter of county affairs and such resolution shall not serve to compel executive action.
(11) Motion. A motion is hereby defined as a proposal to take certain action or an expression of views held by the Quorum Court body; and, as such, a motion is merely a parliamentary procedure which precedes the adoption of resolutions or ordinances. Motions shall not serve to compel any executive action unless such action is provided for by a previously adopted ordinance or state law.
(12) Ordinances may be amended and repealed only by ordinances.
(13) Resolutions may be amended and repealed only by resolutions.
(14) All ordinances shall be subject to initiative and referendum as provided for through Amendment Number 7 to the Arkansas Constitution.
Ch. 5, § 86 [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-4003 (Supp. 1977)]. COUNTY ORDINANCE PROCEDURES — ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT. —
(2) Style requirements of Ordinances and Amendments to Existing Ordinances.
(a) General Provisions. No ordinance or amendment to an existing ordinance passed by a Quorum Court shall contain more than one (1) comprehensive topic; and shall be styled [:] ‘Be it Enacted by the Quorum Court of the County of_, State of Arkansas; an Ordinance to be Entitled:’ Each ordinance shall contain such comprehensive title and the body of such ordinance shall be divided into articles sequentially numbered, each expressing a single general topic related to the single comprehensive topic.
(4) Approval and Publication of Ordinances and Amendments. Upon passage all ordinances . . . shall be approved by the County Judge . . . Such ordinances or amendments shall be published by the County Clerk as prescribed by law.
Ch. 5, § 93 [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-4010 (Supp. 1977)]. RESOLUTIONS — ADOPTION and AMENDMENT. —
(2) Style requirements of Resolutions. General Provisions. No resolution or amendment to a resolution passed by a Quorum Court shall contain more than one (1) comprehensive topic; and shall be styled ‘Be it Resolved by the Quorum Court of the County of , State of Arkansas That: ’.
(4) Majority Vote Required. A proposed resolution must be read and adopted by a majority vote of the whole number of Justices comprising a Quorum Court . . .
(5) Resolutions or an amendment to an existing resolution may be introduced and adopted in a single meeting of the Quorum Court.
(6) Upon passage, all resolutions or amendments to existing resolutions shall be entered into the records of the Quorum Court. Publications of resolutions shall not be required except where publication is specified in such resolution adopted by a Quorum Court.
(8) The power of veto shall not apply to the adoption of resolutions or amendments to resolutions.”
To understand what the majority is calling a substantial compliance with the style requirements of The Arkansas County Government Code for enactment of an ordinance it is necessary to look at the “alleged” nepotism ordinance which provides:
“AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ALL ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIALS OF LOGAN COUNTY FROM EMPLOYING DEPUTIES AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE RELATED BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE THIRD DEGREE TO ANY ELECTED COUNTY OFFICIAL; TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 15 AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LOGAN COUNTY QUORUM COURT:
SECTION 1.
That Ordinance No. 15 is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2.
That all elected County Officials of Logan County are hereby prohibited from employing Deputies or County Employees who are related by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree to any elected County Official.
SECTION 3.
Provided, however, this Ordinance shall not prohibit the continued employment of any County Employee or Deputy who is presently serving as a County Employee or Deputy for the remainder of the present term of office.
SECTION 4.
Whereas: County Officers must have Deputies and employees necessary to carry out the essential activities of County Government, it is hereby found that it is in the best interest of County Government that no person be employed as a Deputy or County Employee who is related by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree to any elected official. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.
APPROVED:
BUSTER J. TRITT,
County Judge
DATED:
12-14-1975
ATTEST:
Penn S. Smith,
County Clerk
The first obvious defect in style is that the title precedes the enactment clause. The second obvious defect is that the Enactment Clause starts “Be it ordained” instead of “Be it enacted” as required by Acts 1977 No. 742 Ch. 5 § 86(2) [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-4003(2) (Supp. 1977)], supra. The third defect in the Enactment Clause is that it does not mention “State of Arkansas.” After all, the authority for the Quorum Court of the County of Logan to enact any law depends upon the authority given it by the State of Arkansas, yet there is no mention of such authority in the Enactment Clause.
As can be seen from the provisions of The Arkansas County Government Code, supra, the General Assembly has gone to great lengths to make a distinction between ordinances and resolutions and has given clear and simple style requirements by which the members of the Quorum Courts and the public can easily distinguish between ordinances and resolutions. However if the majority’s ‘ ‘ substantial compliance’ ’ theory is carried to its logical extension, the businessmen in this State can expect to find legal notices that look like the following:
“Sunday Closing of Business
Be it Resolved by the Quorum Court of the County of White
1. That it is unlawful for any wholesale or retail establishment to remain open on Sundays during the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
APPROVED
John Doe
Date 10-18-79
Attest: Richard Roe
County Clerk”
When the businessman contacts the members of the Quorum Court, he is told that they only passed a resolution that the County Judge approved because of his religious beliefs, but the sheriff and the prosecuting attorney by pointing to our construction of the terms “Be it enacted,” “Be it ordained,” “Be it resolved” as synonymous can take the position that the Quorum Court passed an ordinance. When the businessmen complain to their State Legislators, the State Legislators can truthfully state that they provided a simple and easy method to distinguish between what constituted an ordinance and a resolution and that it was the Arkansas Supreme Court that created the confusion. I must say that I have always considered it the duty of this Court to give a clear interpretation of the law, — i.e. it has the duty of not adding confusion to the law.
Needless to say, I do not think that the “alleged” nepotism ordinance sufficiently complied with the required enactment clause to be valid.
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.
Fogleman, J., joins in this dissent except for that part pertaining to the use of the words “Be it ordained” rather than “Be it Enacted.”