Opinion ID: 2277887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Parties to the Contract

Text: The Board concluded that a violation of Section 17 B of Rule and Regulation 1 occurred based on its finding that [Mr. Oudin] is the owner of a bail bond company and a company [Court Services] which is regularly or frequently employed by a court of law. Though the introductory paragraph of Court Services' contract for services states that the agreement is between Court Services and the City of Pine Bluff, the Board points to substantial evidence that the contract is between Court Services and the Pine Bluff Municipal Court. The evidence in favor of the Board's decision consists of the following: (1) the third recital of the contract states,  [w]hereas, A.C.A. section 16-17-217(a) (Repl.1994) authorizes the Municipal Court, upon approval of the governing body of a municipality, to execute a contract with a person for the collection and enforcement of fines and costs; (2) Paragraph No. 1 of the contract states, Court Services is hereby retained by the Municipal Court to monitor and collect installment payments of fines and court costs; (3) Paragraph No. 2 of the contract lists certain services that Court Services will provide in cooperation with the Municipal Court; and (4) the contract is signed by Mr. Oudin and both the Mayor of Pine Bluff and the Pine Bluff Municipal Judge. In spite of the above-referenced language in the contract, Appellees maintain that the contract at issue was solely between Court Services and the City of Pine Bluff and that Court Services performs a service for the municipal court that is not prohibited by applicable statutes, rules, or regulations. In support of this argument, Appellees point out that the Pine Bluff City Council passed an ordinance on December 21, 1998, waiving competitive bidding and authorizing the mayor, municipal judge, and city clerk to execute the contract with Court Services for the collection of outstanding fines. They also emphasize Mr. Oudin's testimony that Court Services provides a service for the court but actually contracts with the city and county governments and his testimony that employees of Court Services have no contact with the municipal judge. Once again, our standard of review requires us to review the agency's decision, giving the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the agency's decision, and to determine whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Pursuant to this standard of review, viewing the evidence in the Board's favor, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that the contract is between Court Services and the Pine Bluff Municipal Court.