The final audit report of Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ $19,000 lectern purchase was the sole item of business at today’s meeting of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee. Nevertheless, the meeting, which started at 2 p.m., ran into the early evening as legislators questioned auditors and staff members from the governor’s and attorney general’s offices, discussed the audit process generally and made all sorts of excuses for the governor’s office’s multiple violations of the law.

Following an overview of the report by the auditors, Sanders’ Deputy Chief of Staff Judd Deere and Chief Legal Counsel Cortney Kennedy were sworn in as the first witnesses. Deere dedicated his opening statement to repeating talking points that have no basis in reality. 

Sanders welcomed the audit, was cooperative throughout the process, and her office was pleased that the final audit report proved what they “had been saying all along,” Deere said. He described the audit as “wasting significant taxpayer resources just to conclude…that no laws were broken.”

(FACT CHECK: The report did not reach that conclusion. As detailed yesterday, the report identified multiple laws broken by Sanders’ office. Auditors referred their findings to Pulaski County Prosecutor Will Jones to determine whether any criminal charges should be filed.)

Sen. Kim Hammer (R-Benton) said he was “very proud of our governor” before asking why Sanders refused to speak with or provide a written statement to auditors.

“The governor has given multiple public statements about the lectern,” Kennedy said, “so there was no point in giving another one.”

(FACT CHECK: Sanders offered little information about the lectern during the months-long audit. When questioned about it in October, Sanders said only that her office “followed the regular course of law, standard operating procedure for any purchase,” and offered to put reporters in touch with the lectern manufacturer. Sanders directed reporters to Beckett Events, who did not respond to multiple reporters’ inquiries.)

Legislators next asked representatives from Attorney General Tim Griffin’s office about his opinion, issued just before the release of the audit report, that said the governor’s office is exempt from most procurement and property-disposal rules. Chief Deputy Attorney General Ryan Owsley said Griffin’s opinion was issued at Sanders’ request. Deputy Attorney General Noah Watson said the state’s procurement laws did not need to be clarified because, in Griffin’s opinion, they were already clear and supported his conclusions.

Legislative Audit chief counsel Emily White disagreed with Griffin’s opinion. Because state procurement laws exempt constitutional officers in some subsections, the logical reading is that constitutional officers are covered by the laws anywhere they were not specifically exempted, she said. Owsley pushed back, noting that constitutional officers are included in some sections and not others, so the default should be that constitutional officers are not subject to the law except where expressly included.

Committee co-chair Rep. Jimmy Gazaway (R-Paragould) called the disagreement on this point a “disputed question of law” that might ultimately be up to a judge to decide.

Sen. David Wallace (R-Leachville), the committee’s other co-chair, asked Owsley if he was saying that there should not have been an audit. Owsley said he was not saying there should not have been an audit and that he and Watson were only there because of the dispute over which laws apply.

Owsley also said the AG’s office had no opinion on the audit’s conclusion that Sanders’ office failed to draw up a business justification document for the lectern purchase in the time frame required by state law or the conclusion that the governor’s office violated the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

Rep. Julie Mayberry (R-Hensley) said she wished the governor’s staffers would have brought the lectern to the meeting so that people could see it, noting that the media had asked repeatedly to see it and only the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette was given access. “If the lectern is not being used then it’s a complete waste of money,” Mayberry said.

The lectern is “in the governor’s office suite and has been since August,” Deere said. “It has been shown to media who asked,” he added.

(FACT CHECK: Deere’s comment is demonstrably false. Several media outlets have asked to see the lectern since last September, and all were turned away by the governor’s office. Later, Mayberry seized on this and asked Deere about it a second time, at which point Deere’s story changed and he said the lectern had been available to view “until the audit was authorized.” But the governor’s office denied media requests to see the lectern between when this story originally broke on Sept. 15 and when the audit was authorized on Oct. 13.)

The auditor’s report mentioned that three vendors involved with the purchase failed to respond to auditor’s questions or provide information via the governor’s office. Rep. Tippi McCullough (D-Little Rock) asked if the governor’s office made a good-faith effort to get that information.

Kennedy answered that said she sent an email to Virginia Beckett and an email to Hannah Stone.

McCullough also asked about the $2,500 consulting fee included in the total cost of the lectern. That fee was paid to Stone and Beckett for “the work they did to get the lectern ordered” like the governor wanted it, Deere said. 

The lectern did not arrive as the governor wanted it, though. It was supposed to be 39” tall at the edge where the speaker stands — “at the governor’s elbow when wearing 2-inch heels,” Kennedy explained. But the lectern they received is 44” at that edge.

Deere also appeared to struggle to provide a coherent answer when asked by Sen. Greg Leding (D-Fayetteville) to explain the apparent contradiction between the audit report’s finding the lectern had no audio equipment at all and Sanders’ statement in October that the lectern’s cost was due in part to its special audio equipment.

Deere said there was no discrepancy. Sanders was only referring to the lectern’s capacity to have a microphone plugged in, along with a reading light and holes through which sound-equipment wires could be run in the future, Deere said.

Sen. Linda Chesterfield (D-Little Rock) took issue with the contention that the governor is not bound by rules about disposal of state property. Can a constitutional officer purchase a car for $20,000 and then sell it to a third party for whatever dollar amount the officer wishes, she asked. Owsley did not answer the question, saying instead that this is “not what the issue was.” He continued to avoid the question even after Chesterfield repeated it.

Another issue that came up repeatedly during the hearing was the Republican Party of Arkansas’s reimbursement of the lectern’s purchase price. Legislators wanted to know when and why the decision was made to ask the RPA to pay for the lectern.

Deere said it was not the original intent to have the RPA pay, but after the lectern was received, the office “decided it was preferable” to repay the purchase price with private funds. He was asked more than once why this was preferable, but never gave a clear answer.

Sen. John Payton (R-Wilburn) began his questioning of the governor’s staff with the observation that “You can’t correct a mistake until you admit that you’ve made one.” He added he didn’t think the lectern was “worth $19,000 or $11,500, but the lesson could be if you just accept the fact that it was bad judgment” on the governor’s staff’s part. Payton asked Deere and Kennedy whether the governor’s office was willing to not use Beckett or Stone as vendors for anything in the future.

Deere, who praised Beckett and Stone earlier in the hearing as “some of the best in the business” and said he had great respect for them, answered that the governor’s office has no plans to use them as vendors and hasn’t used either since the lectern was purchased.

“Isn’t it naive to have ‘great respect’ for” Beckett and Stone “when they failed to provide the product ordered?” Payton asked.

Deere disputed the premise of the question. “It is not a standard lectern,” he said. The lectern is “custom to a specific height,” he added.

Despite paying Beckett and Stone $2,500 for their help ordering it, the lectern as delivered did not match the specific height that was custom ordered, making it unclear why Deere kept stressing that the lectern was supposed to have been custom-made to specific measurements.

Sen. Mark Johnson (R-Little Rock) used his time to “apologize to the governor for being put through this” and claimed the governor had been the victim of a “weaponized political process.”

Sen. Jimmy Hickey (R-Texarkana), who requested the audit in the first place back in October, took issue with the tone of some of Gazaway’s comments and questions during the hearing. Hickey asked Gazaway if he had said in a meeting recently that the audit was “out of control and needed to be reigned in.” Gazaway said he recalled a meeting, but did not recall saying anything to that effect. Gazaway noted that he had heard similar comments from other legislators, though.

Hickey also seized on an inconsistency in the attorney general’s position. After Owsley said in response to earlier questioning that the governor’s office was not an “agency” under state law, he explained this was because what matters when interpreting a statute is the words the Legislature uses. Hickey then pointed out that the appropriations for the governor’s office, the Senate, and even the attorney general’s office all use the word “agency” to refer to those offices. Why don’t those words matter, Hickey asked Owsley.

That could be standard language that no one considered changing, Owsley said. That the same could be said for the myriad additions to the state procurement laws over the years did not appear to trouble Owsley.

Roger Norman, head of Legislative Audit, told lawmakers he generally meets with the head of the agency being audited to go over the report and answer any questions. When Norman attempted to have that interview with Sanders, however, there were legislators and at least one person from the attorney general’s office in the room as well. Norman said when he saw that, he turned around and left.

When asked why, Norman said it was common practice to meet only with the agency head and agency staff. This was the first time he had seen someone try to include outside parties as well, he said.

Multiple legislators teed up openings for Sanders staffers to admit the governor’s office made a mistake, but the staffers declined every opportunity to do so.

“Could this be a simple mistake and a knee-jerk reaction to cover it?” Rep. Robin Lundstrum (R-Springdale) asked.

“This was not a mistake,” Deere said.

Sen. Missy Irvin (R-Mountain Home) was curious whether the attorney general and the governor’s staff worked together to draft the governor’s response to the audit report, since the governor’s response and the attorney general’s opinion were so similar. Staff for both offices denied any collaboration.

Hammer asked about the speed with which the AG’s office produced their opinion that the governor’s office does not count as a state agency under state procurement laws. It took only about a week after the governor requested it, Owsley said.

The average time for an opinion is 40 days, Owsley said. Multiple legislators chimed in to say they had waited on AG opinions for much longer.

Unsurprisingly, legislators had questions about Sanders’ lectern hype video that she tweeted yesterday, shortly after the damning report was released.

Deere described the video as “tongue-in-cheek.” He said Sanders had been “transparent and cooperative” during the audit, so the video was her way to “make the point clear” that everyone needed to move on now that the audit was complete.

The video was created by Sanders’ creative director, Keaton Davis, Deere said. But he added that the work was done “in his spare time,” and said Davis did not use any governor’s office equipment to create it.

Rep. Carol Dalby (R-Texarkana), an attorney, asked Kennedy about the governor’s office’s alteration of the Beckett invoice to say “To be reimbursed” after the invoice was requested through FOIA. Kennedy said adding the note is a common government practice used to keep track of information.

Shortly before this, though, Kennedy suggested the governor’s staff’s unfamiliarity with rules was because, “Few, if any, of us ever worked for a governor before.”

The post Lawmakers question governor’s staff over lectern audit appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Brian Chilson

All eight proposals regarding crypto mines passed out of the House Rules committee Tuesday and will head to the House floor on Wednesday.

Some colorful testimony served as a preview of the potential for political fireworks if lawmakers fail to take action to give local communities protection from crypto mines — or cave to lobbyists with a phony fig leaf.

Speaking of which: In presenting his resolution today, Rep. Rick McClure, widely believed to be carrying water for the crypto industry, said his proposal would restore local control, even though the current language apparently still places some limits on local governments. The McClure proposal, co-sponsored by Sen. Joshua Bryant, does chip away at some of the most glaring issues with Act 851, the crypto mining law McClure and Bryant teamed up to sponsor and pass last year. It will be worth monitoring closely to see just how these proposals evolve as the sausage gets made.

The flurry of resolutions comes in response to backlash to Act 851, which severely limits the ability of local communities to regulate bitcoin mining operations. Reportedly written by a crypto advocacy group, it was passed with little discussion during last year’s legislative session just eight days after it was introduced.

The 2024 fiscal session, which began last week, is generally only for passing budget-related bills. For a bill to be filed on a non-budget matter during the fiscal session, both the Senate and the House must approve a resolution to consider it by a two-thirds majority. If that threshold is cleared, the bill itself can then be filed and go through the normal legislative process.

Sen. Bryan King, the most outspoken critic of Act 851, presented six resolutions alongside his House co-sponsor, Rep. Josh Miller.

“These crypto mines are not job creators,” King said, stating that an operation might at most employ a handful of people at the site. “They’re really job creators in China.” He cited investigations in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere regarding Chinese ownership or involvement in crypto mining companies. He noted that given the web of shell companies involved, it’s difficult to trace who’s ultimately in control of these mining operations.

King noted one proposed crypto mine in the state that he said would use as much power as 6,000 to 8,000 homes, or a poultry plant or processing plant that employs thousands of people. All that for perhaps two or three local jobs, at most, he said. “It’s a China jobs-creating bill,” he said. 

King also raised questions about the Satoshi Group, a dark money crypto advocacy group that reportedly had a part in crafting the language that wound up in Act 851 (King, apparently a fan of “Hee-Haw” — or alt-country — said it was a “501c3, BR-549, whatever,” a joke lost on the committee; google it).

King reiterated that he does not want to ban crypto mines, but said that they should not get a special carve out from local government oversight and other regulation. Stripping local control, he said, had rigged the game in favor of powerful interests: “You have citizens in Bono having chili suppers trying to fight a billion-dollar company that is hiring the top, most expensive lawyers in the state.”

“They knew what they were doing,” King said. “They had everything in place to set everything up. They knew that any community that tried to do anything…the Rose Law Firm and the people that did it knew everything. … Small towns and communities don’t have the resources to fight billion-dollar companies in federal court.”

(Note: As far as I know, the financial information on these operations is too opaque to say with confidence that any given firm doing crypto mining in Arkansas is a billion-dollar company, though that wouldn’t shock me if it was true (at least five of the biggest operations have market caps at or above a billion dollars). Just sorting out who ultimately controls the tangle of LLCs and shell companies involved can be murky. Certainly these are big players, and the point stands that preemptively getting a protective law passed and hiring the state’s top firm seems to point to a strategy of using their spending power to overwhelm or intimidate local citizens who might complain.)

Closing for the proposals, Miller said that some had told him he would lose all political capital he had if he helped to run the bills. Pausing to smirk, he said, “Hell, I’ve never had any.”

“There’s folks out here that are really hurting because of what’s going on here,” Miller said. He mentioned that he had been asked why he didn’t just trust the original sponsors, McClure and Bryant, to make necessary fixes. “I don’t let the same man take me snipe hunting twice,” he said.

McClure, presenting his proposal, objected, sort of, to the widespread reporting that Satoshi played a heavy hand in drafting Act 851. He said he met the owner of Cryptic Farms, a bitcoin mining operation, in his role as chairman of the Hot Spring County Economic Development Corporation. That inspired him to write a bill that, he said, “included most of my language.”

“Yes, the Satoshi group reached out,” he said. “They provided links to legislation in Missouri, Mississippi and Montana. I chose the Missouri bill to copy some wording. That was probably a mistake.”

He said that to his surprise, “What was pitched as anti-discriminatory phraseology turned out to be limiting control.”

Oops!

He also tried to explain why the bill was rushed through at the very end of the session, a classic move by lobbyists trying to sneak something through that could be politically contentious but isn’t well understood by lawmakers. Supposedly there was some kind of miscommunication with a certain utility entity that wanted input. Just one of those things. Pay no attention to the smell …

“Obviously there were unintended consequences on other portions of the bill,” McClure said. This is a strange claim, since the intended consequences in the plain language of Act 851 couldn’t be clearer. People aren’t complaining about some surprise that came out of nowhere. They are complaining precisely about the intentions spelled out nakedly in the original legislation — an effort by crypto mining operations to game the system to preemptively dodge local input or regulation.

“We’ve got problems and we need to fix it,” McClure said. He said the key elements were a return to local control for counties and cities, new noise mitigation and distance requirements, and efforts to stop ownership by designated nations such as China.

His claim that his bill would return local control sparked some questions. Rep. Carol Dalby (R-Texarkana) pointed out that the bill’s language regarding what a “local government shall not do” referenced a subsection that did not exist and that the new bill still mentions three prohibitions on local government. “You said it’s not limiting local control but by the language it’s limiting local control,” she said.

That includes entirely new language stating that local governments are disallowed from prohibiting “home digital asset mining” or any requirements to “obtain approval from a local government before engaging in home digital asset mining.” While an individual could crypto mine from home, it wouldn’t really work — you need a very expensive network of high-powered computers in order to compete. I’m not sure why the protection for home bitcoin mining was included, but the paranoid among you might wonder if this is creating a new legal loophole that the crypto miners hope to exploit.

“We want to make sure we give the local control back to locals, so if we have a problem with language, we’ll get that taken care of,” McClure said. Hopefully there will be no unintended consequences. (To be fair, I suspect the issue with the missing subsection was just a typo that will be fixed.)

Asked why the proposal includes a new effort to explicitly block local governments from any form of regulation if the mining is done in a “home,” McClure said, “The intent there was to not get into homes, but that’s up for discussion, I’m open.”

Finally, Rep. Jeremiah Moore presented a proposal, co-sponsored by Sen. Missy Irvin, that would establish state-level regulation and impose a state-level noise ordinance. He said that after a crypto mining operation opened near DeWitt, he spent no less than 60 hours speaking on the phone with concerned citizens. He said that given how powerful the crypto mining operations were, with potentially billion-dollar companies flexing their muscle, the issues demanded state-level authority to create and enforce rules and regulations. He also supported returning local control, he said, but without support from the state, the big corporations would “run roughshod” over smaller rural communities, he said.

Moore was among those subpoenaed by Jones Digital, which owns the crypto mining operation in DeWitt, after it sued the county on the basis of Act 851.

A couple of citizens testified, including the peppery Jackie Johnson, who owns a flower shop in DeWitt and emerged as the star of the day. She said she would tell the truth and try not to cuss. She said crypto represented “organized gambling facilities for billionaires.” It’s an industry riven with fraud, she said, and it will “ruin communities in Arkansas.”

“It opens up for bad actors to come in,” she said. “And I don’t want anybody to be fooled here. Sarah Sanders knew exactly what she was doing when she opened the door for the crypto mines to come in here … It’s all fraud. I am a legitimate business.”

Speaking to a legislator who owned a sand and gravel business, she said, “That’s your business, you provide in the community. When you run your business, do you destroy other people that live miles from you? Do you hurt their business? No, you don’t.”

She said the facility in DeWitt uses up energy equivalent to thirty Walmart supercenters.

She also offered an amazing anecdote about a city council meeting in Dumas. According to Johnson, Cameron Baker — a partner at Cryptic Farms, one of the key backers of Act 851 — was on the agenda and spouted off Satoshi talking points, dodged questions about job creation (“maybe five” he eventually said), and told the mostly elderly crowd that crypto was just a way to pay bills online. Heh.

According to Johnson, referring to the Bryan-Moore bill that would become Act 851, Baker said, “I wrote that bill.”

If I was a lawmaker in Arkansas, I would not want to get crossways with citizens like Jackie Johnson. The pressure is on to find a real solution to a problem legislators  themselves created.

The post Eight resolutions on crypto mines advance out of House committee appeared first on Arkansas Times.

A group of about 100 people who support a ceasefire in the Middle East gathered at the Little Rock Board of Directors meeting on Tuesday. The diverse group included Jewish people, Palestinians and a collection of allies.

Judge Wendell Griffen, who wore a keffiyeh draped over his shoulders, introduced the group to city officials in the packed meeting space. The Centre at University Park on 12th Street, where the Little Rock city directors currently meet, was at capacity Tuesday. An overflow of some two dozen people were locked outside around 6 p.m., when the city’s meeting was set to begin. At least 10 officers with the Little Rock Police Department were on site.

Brian Chilson

Ahmed Ali kicked off the group’s call for a ceasefire. He referenced the Little Rock Nine’s fight for equality in the 1950s and said the group before the board on Tuesday was seeking equality, too. Ali said the request for a ceasefire was not taking sides, but rather stopping the loss of life.

“You might wonder if Little Rock is really the place for something like this, and I really think it’s more symbolic than anything to be on the right side of history at this time,” Ali said.

Brian Chilson

He also acknowledged that while calling for a ceasefire might not be the most popular demand, “it is the right one.”

Fifteen-year-old Samar Adunasrah followed Ali’s speech with a powerful statement with a poem-like cadence. A fifth-generation Palestinian, Adunsarah said she doesn’t feel safe watching while her homeland turns to rubble. She wondered whether her family still in Palestine is dead or alive.

Brian Chilson

“I feel the stares behind my back,” Adunasrah said. “I feel as if I don’t belong simply because I’m Palestinian. I watch as the racism festers. I see people around the world celebrating the lands of their ancestors, while mine is facing a genocide. I do not feel safe as a Palestinian.”

Stephanie Gray, who said they were proudly Jewish, was the last to speak on the ceasefire. Gray said they have experienced death threats and verbal and physical assault because of their faith. 

Sometimes emotional while addressing the board, Gray talked about the loss of people in the Middle East.

Brian Chilson

“They were mothers, sisters, wives, colleagues, teachers, storytellers and peacemakers,” Gray said. “They were my friends, and they are gone. But their legacy continues in me and all who loved them.”

The members of the Little Rock Board of Directors did not comment or ask questions to those who spoke in support of the ceasefire. This is the normal protocol when residents come to speak.

For a resolution in support of a ceasefire to be passed, a city official would have to call on the city attorney’s office to draft a resolution, or state that one was in the process of being written. It could then be placed on the director’s agenda and be voted on.

Expressing international support like this would not be a first for the board. In 2022, the board approved a resolution to express the city’s support for the people of Ukraine “as they heroically resist the blatant and unwarranted attack on their freedom by Russia.”

Though there appears to be a mock resolution circulating on social media, City Attorney Tom Carpenter said Tuesday evening he was not aware of an official draft resolution concerning a ceasefire in the Middle East.

The post Activists call on Little Rock officials to support ceasefire in the Middle East appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Beef-a-Roo, the Rockford, Illinois-based fast casual franchise that has been “famously delicious since 1967,” held a grand reopening last weekend at its Shackleford Road location following a fire in the kitchen that occurred just a few months after the restaurant made its Little Rock debut last October.

Beef-a-Roo CEO Matt Riddle told the Arkansas Times in March that the fire was small but destroyed the restaurant’s griddle and one of its fryers. Riddle said equipment availability and insurance delayed reopening plans. A release from the restaurant says it has been newly remodeled since the closure.

The reopening coincides with the launch of a new daily breakfast menu, which features breakfast sandwiches, bowls, burritos and coffee drinks. Beef-a-Roo has incorporated its signature roast beef on a “BaRito” with scrambled eggs, caramelized onions, American cheese and maple aioli. The roast beef is also available on a breakfast sandwich, which is offered on a biscuit or a croissant. You can check out the full menu here.

Beef-a-Roo’s new roast beef breakfast sandwich.

In a press release, Riddle said the reopening represents a new chapter for the restaurant.

“We are incredibly excited to welcome back our loyal guests and introduce our community to an entirely new experience,” Riddle said. “We can’t wait to share our passion for great food and warm hospitality with the wonderful people of Little Rock.”

The post Beef-a-Roo reopens, now serves breakfast appeared first on Arkansas Times.

A small crowd, some toting small dogs beside them on leashes or swaddled in blankets, gathered at the North Little Rock animal shelter in Burns Park this morning to break ground on a new facility.

As North Little Rock Mayor Terry Hartwick and others hoisted clumps of burnt orange dirt onto their shovels, shelter director Adam Tindall joked that “each and every” person in attendance at the groundbreaking “is gonna get a free animal today. … If y’all read your programs,” Tindall quipped, “it’s real small print, but all you’ve gotta do is come to the front door, get us your name and we’ll get you sent out of here with one. Everybody ready?!”

Stephanie Smittle

The current facility at 1 Championship Drive was built in 1961 and, as Hartwick said, “has not had anything added since the ’80s.” Renderings of the new shelter, designed by architect Gary Clement of Clements & Associates and being constructed by contractor David Austin at Austin Construction, show an additional 900 square feet of space to be added to the structure during the overhaul.

Stephanie Smittle

Stephanie Smittle

“Every dog I’ve ever had,” Hartwick said, has been adopted from North Little Rock’s animal services. He recounted a time when his son Derrell Hartwick, now the president of North Little Rock’s Chamber of Commerce, brought home a new addition to the family from the North Little Rock shelter.

“When Derrell was just a little boy,” Terry Hartwick said, “I sent him out here to pick out a dog — a beautiful dog — and he brings home … Mojo. The ugliest black dog.” At Halloween, the family would paint a white stripe down Mojo’s back to masquerade him as a skunk.

Stephanie Smittle

The project is expected to be completed in November. KARK reports it is being funded with “half a million dollars” from the city of North Little Rock and the federal American Rescue Plan, an economic stimulus bill passed in 2021.

In addition to the extra space to accommodate North Little Rock’s rescued animals, the facility will include a party room for rental where, Hartwick said, “kids can have have a birthday party, or whatever, and then adopt the animal that they choose.”

Ribbing the mayor one last time, Tindall said the mayor’s 76th birthday party would be held at the shelter. “We’re gonna release all the dogs in the playpen and just have all the dogs jump all over you for your birthday. We’re very excited for that.”

The post North Little Rock breaks ground on new animal shelter appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Another former Crawford County officer plans to change his plea in a federal case over a violent arrest in Mulberry almost two years ago.

The May 6 trial for former sheriff’s deputy Levi White was canceled Tuesday, and U.S. District Judge Mark E. Ford set a plea hearing for 10 a.m. Friday in Fort Smith.

On Monday, former deputy Zackary King pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor civil rights violation as part of a negotiated agreement. If a judge approves, the original felony charge against King will be stricken at his sentencing.

King, 28, and White, 33, were charged with violating the civil rights of Randal Worcester, then 27, of Goose Creek, South Carolina, when they arrested him in August 2022. Worcester was accused of threatening and spitting on a grocery store worker in the tiny community of Mulberry. A bystander recorded a video of King, White and a third officer kicking and hitting Worcester while he was lying on the ground and slamming his head into the pavement.

Federal agents did not arrest a third officer who helped with the arrest, Mulberry Police Officer Thell Riddle, who later returned to work.

Worcester is awaiting a July 29 trial in Crawford County Circuit Court in Van Buren on felony charges of terroristic threatening and second-degree battery as well as four misdemeanor charges.

The post Second former officer prepares to change plea in Mulberry arrest appeared first on Arkansas Times.

The Arkansas State Police on Wednesday announced officers arrested four suspects in connection to a deadly shooting at a Wynne block party Saturday evening. 

Quavarious Milon, 23; Tommie Frost, 18; Carl Washington, 21; and Cameron Crawford, 22, are being held at the Cross County Detention Center, according to state police. All four are residents of Cross County.

One person died and nine were injured at a block party in Wynne on April 13 after someone opened gunfire and vehicles drove into crowds of people. Varian Campbell, 27, was pronounced dead at a local hospital. The injured victims’ ages ranged from 24 to 29, the state police said.

All suspects were charged with first-degree murder, nine counts of first-degree battery and nine counts of engaging in violent criminal group activity, according to a release from the state police

According to the Cross County inmate roster, all suspects were also charged with nine counts of being “in concert with two or more to commit a violent crime.” Milon received an additional charge of “terroristic threatening – second-degree harassment.”

Wynne, a town in east Arkansas, has a population of about 8,000.

The post Police arrest four suspects tied to Wynne block party shooting appeared first on Arkansas Times.

ARRESTS MADE: A federal investigation resulted in 16 arrests this week.

A nearly two-year federal investigation into the distribution of methamphetamine in northeast Arkansas resulted in the arrest of 16 people this week on charges related to drugs, guns and money laundering. 

After a federal grand jury returned “numerous indictments” against the suspects on April 2, a “sweeping law enforcement operation” arrested 15 associates of a drug organization on Tuesday morning, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

Law enforcement also arrested one person Monday and served arrest warrants for two defendants who were already in federal custody and another who was already in state custody. 

Before the arrests, the investigation had resulted in the seizure of 45 pounds of meth, 10 pounds of marijuana, a pound of cocaine, six firearms, ammunition and $125,000 in drug proceeds, the press release said. During Tuesday’s arrests, law enforcement seized more meth, three more guns, ammunition and about $28,000 in drug proceeds. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation with help from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, the 2nd Judicial District Drug Task Force, the Jonesboro Police Department, the Craighead County Sheriff’s Office, the Crittenden County Sheriff’s Office, the Arkansas State Police, the Greene County Sheriff’s Office, the Poinsett County Sheriff’s Office and the Clay County Sheriff’s Office, the release said. 

The defendants’ charges are related to drug distribution, money laundering and firearm possession. The minimum penalty for the drug charges is 10 years in prison and a fine of $10 million.

Those arrested yesterday are set to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore Thursday for pleas and arraignments.  Arraignments for the individuals who were already in custody have not been scheduled.

The U.S. attorney’s office released the following names of the defendants:

Cesar Cortez-Rocha, 51, Misson, Texas

Amado Barranco, Jr. aka “Myo”, 55, McAllen, Texas

Bobby Franklin Barber, 60, Jonesboro

Misty Dawn Barber, 38, Jonesboro

Jamie Lynn Patterson, 40, Jonesboro

*Amie Dawn Eggers, 39, Jonesboro (already in federal custody on other charges)

Carey Wayne Peden, 46, Little Rock

Vance Allen Brown, 56, Hot Springs

*Sir Edward Lee Qualls aka “Buddy”, 35, Earle (already in federal custody on related charges)

Reginald Bogan aka “Smooth”, 37, Jonesboro

**Melissa Bradley, 33, Jonesboro (already in custody on state charges)

Jerry Crump, 55, Jonesboro

Sandi Stanfill, 59, Paragould

Delisha Pugh, 25, Earle

Jennifer Jones, 37, Brookland

William Jones, 28, Harrisburg

Marcus McIntyre, 42, Memphis, Tennessee

Harthoner Goforth, 38, Paragould

Shauna Rutledge, 37, Hughes

* already in federal custody

** in state custody

The post Northeast Arkansas meth investigation leads to 16 arrests this week appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Some Arkansas lawmakers seem dissatisfied with information coming out about the death of airport executive Bryan Malinwoski, who died after federal agents shot him with returned fire while they were serving a warrant at his home in West Little Rock on March 19.

In a quest for more information about how agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives served a search warrant at Malinowski’s house at 6 a.m., a group of Arkansas legislators have called a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday. The meeting is scheduled upon adjournment of the House and Senate, which will likely be after lunch.

On April 14, Attorney General Tim Griffin told reporter Roby Brock that the ATF should release body camera footage from the raid at Malinowski’s house on March 19.

“I think there are a lot of questions that have been raised by journalists, by attorneys, by just citizens saying, ‘Hey, what’s the deal here? Look, this is bizarre that there’s just been silence.’ I understand there’s a state investigation going on with it, but there’s nothing about this footage that should stop it from being released,” Griffin told Brock.

The press release announcing the lawmaker’s meeting on Thursday comes from state Rep. Matt Duffield (R-Russellville). It doesn’t mention previously released information from the ATF that Malinowski shot at the federal agents first. 

The press release reads, “ATF agents broke down Bryan Malinowski’s front door before sunrise on March 19th in a failed attempt to execute a search warrant as he and his wife slept. The noise awakened Mr. Malinowski, who grabbed a weapon and encountered federal agents in a dark hall. Agents shot him in the head, and he died two days later.”

At least 20 lawmakers are expected to be at the meeting Thursday, including Duffield, Sen. Mark Johnson (R-Little Rock) and Rep. Marcus Richmond (R-Harvey), according to the press release.

“We want the truth,” Duffield said. “We want the body cam footage. His family deserves to see it. The people of Arkansas deserve to see it. We must learn what happened.”

Malinowski was flagged by federal agents for selling guns illegally, according to court documents released two days after the raid. Malinowski had purchased approximately 150 guns over a couple of years and was selling them at gun shows and by word of mouth, the affidavit alleges. During an investigation, Malinowski sold three guns to undercover agents. A handful of guns that went through Malinowski’s hands were recovered at crime scenes from California to Canada, though at least three of those crimes were marijuana possessions, according to court documents.

Bud Cummins, a former U.S. attorney representing Malinowski’s family, provided statements following the death. “At worst, Bryan Malinowski, a gun owner and gun enthusiast, stood accused of making private firearm sales to a person who may not have been legally entitled to purchase the guns,” Cummins said.

Most recently, on April 7, Cummins released videos of the federal agents arriving in Malinowski’s cul-de-sac. Footage from a neighbor’s doorbell camera shows at least 10 cars on the street, and the doorbell camera by Malinowski’s front door shows armed agents approaching his house before covering the feed. The video and audio Cummins provided ends there, so it’s not known how or if the agents announced themselves.

Aside from the two short videos from Cummins, no other footage from the raid has been released, and questions about how the raid was handled still haven’t been answered. Language on the search warrant does not make clear whether agents knocked and announced themselves, or if it was a no-knock warrant.

Arkansas State Police is investigating the shooting.

Following Malinowski’s death, members of the airport commission awarded him a $24,000 bonus. The funds will go to Malinowski’s estate.

The post Lawmakers seeking more info on airport exec Malinowski’s death plan Thursday press conference appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Jim Wooten (file photo)

Alongside approving the flurry of crypto resolutions Tuesday, the House Rules committee also OK’d a proposal to consider a pay raise increase for state employees.

The resolution, previously approved by the Senate, got the necessary two-thirds approval on the House floor Wednesday, and can now be filed as a bill.

The lack of pay raises for many state employees last year has been a source of great controversy, with some legislators blaming a wonky system established by previous Gov. Asa Hutchinson more than the current governor.

The 2024 fiscal session, which began last week, is generally only for passing budget-related bills. For a bill to be filed on a non-budget matter during the fiscal session, both the Senate and the House must approve a resolution to consider it by a two-thirds majority. If that threshold is cleared, the bill itself can then be filed and go through the normal legislative process.

“It provides a one-time, market-adjustment salary increase for state employees, not to exceed 3% of their base salary,” Rep. Jim Wooten (R-Searcy) explained in presenting the resolution.

The proposal from Wooten appears to mirror a plan outlined by Gov. Sarah Sanders in a letter she sent to state employees in March. Sanders said she hoped to overhaul the state employee pay plan entirely in the 2025 regular session but in the meantime would ask legislators to approve a temporary plan.

Certain pay grades are also adjusted, making $32,405 the lowest annual salary for any state employee. The maximum salary for all current pay grades would be increased by 10% (that doesn’t mean each employee would get that bump, just that the ceiling is higher for those grades). And it changes the rules for hazardous duty pay for employees, allowing correctional officers temporarily assigned to maximum security units to receive a pay bump.

Another change, perhaps the most controversial: “It creates a special compensation award system for employees, recognizing outstanding performance at completing significant projects, job assignments, or for taking additional duties.”

Wooten acknowledged that such an award system was inherently subjective, and that some may have concerns about supervisors playing favorites. He said lawmakers were searching for language to narrow it down to those employees who clearly went above and beyond the call of duty in terms of a special task, project or assignment. He said the resolution sponsors would be willing to discuss potential issues in the final drafting of a bill.

He noted some safeguards: an agency would need to provide a plan for the special awards prior to doling them out and must get approval for those plans by the Legislative Council or Joint Budget Committee. The plan could include a bonus payment of up to $5,000 or an agency could provide an additional incentive to existing employees of up to 40 hours vacation. The agency would have to find the funding for the awards within their existing budgets.

Rep. Dwight Tosh (R-Jonesboro) expressed concern about the merit awards component on the House floor Wednesday, expressing the worry that a supervisor could use the bonuses to unfairly reward a favored employee. He said a supervisor could give an employee a special assignment that could just as well have gone to another employee — or, a supervisor in one division could designate an assignment for a reward whereas the same assignment might be done in another division without being marked for reward. That could harm morale, Tosh said.

Tosh said that he had been in touch with Wooten and hoped the concerns could be worked out in committee once the bill is filed.

“We have a responsibility to the state employees,” Wooten said, closing for the bill. In order to retain employees, remain competitive and hire high-quality professionals, a pay raise is overdue, he said.

The post House advances proposal to increase state employee pay appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Over to you.

The post Wednesday open line appeared first on Arkansas Times.

The second development phase of the new Trinity Community Garden on Broadway will take place on Friday and more than 100 volunteers have signed up through the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance.

The project is part of the “Block to Block” program from “Love, Tito’s,” the “philanthropic heart” of the Austin, Texas-based vodka purveyor. The program aims to provide green spaces that serve as free food sources and gathering places for local communities. Last October, volunteers helped with the construction phase. On Friday, the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance and volunteers will install a trellis system, plant and mulch blueberry bushes and fruit trees, build compost bins, food wall planters, fences and picnic tables.

Brian Chilson

Volunteers are no longer needed for this event, but if you’re interested in more  opportunities to help the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, you can sign up here.

The post Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance and volunteers working to complete Trinity Community Garden on Friday appeared first on Arkansas Times.

The Little Rock Board of Directors took another step toward a city-owned solar array Tuesday evening with the approval of a $12 million plan to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of the project.

The ordinance approved Tuesday describes a short-term note totaling $12 million, which the city would borrow from a bank and pay back within five years. About one-third of the total cost is expected to be covered with federal funds through a repayment of investment tax credits.

The city is planning to build a 4.9 megawatt solar project, and the board in February approved a contract with Sun Hog Solar, LLC. The next step was securing the financing, which ideally needs to be approved before September in order for Little Rock to qualify for a rate deal.

Next, city officials need to decide where they’re going to put the solar array, which is expected to take up about 50 acres. Mayor Frank Scott Jr. told directors Tuesday that officials are scouting four city-owned plots as potential building sites. Entergy is also involved in the location selection process, he said.

If none of the locations seem like a good enough fit to Entergy staff, the city wouldn’t spend the money, Scott said. If it all falls through, the city would eat about $200,000 in contractual costs, Scott estimated.

If built, however, the solar array would be expected to save a significant amount of electrical costs — about $27 million over the next two decades, according to an estimate provided by the city. Those figures align with Scott’s goal to reach 100% clean energy for Little Rock city operations by 2030.

The solar array would only be used to power government buildings such as City Hall; nothing would be sold to power commercial businesses or residences.

The post City officials OK financial plan for Little Rock solar array appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Brian Chilson

The House today approved two proposals regarding crypto mines but rejected six others.

The flurry of resolutions came in response to backlash to Act 851 of 2023, which severely limits the ability of local communities to regulate bitcoin mining operations. Reportedly written by a crypto advocacy group, it was passed with little discussion during last year’s legislative session just eight days after it was introduced. A groundswell of complaints followed, with concerns raised about noise; health factors; environmental damage; negative impacts on livestock, birds and wildlife; harm to property values and quality of life; and overuse of energy and water. Critics have also raised questions about Chinese ownership of crypto mining operations.

The six resolutions that fell short of the needed two-thirds approval, all of them co-sponsored by Sen. Bryan King (R-Green Forrest) and Rep. Josh Miller (R-Heber Springs), took the most aggressive approach to regulating the industry.

The two that passed could well be good efforts to address concerns, but the commentary from Republicans in the House today suggested that lobbyists remain eager to chip away at them once they hit committee.

The 2024 fiscal session, which began last week, is generally only for passing budget-related bills. For a bill to be filed on a non-budget matter during the fiscal session, both the Senate and the House must approve a resolution to consider it by a two-thirds majority. If that threshold is cleared, the bill itself can then be filed and go through the normal legislative process. (All eight bills had already received approval in the Senate.)

Given the shortened calendar for the fiscal session, the King proposals are likely now dead. The rejections came despite an explicit request from Rep. Stephen Meeks (R-Greenbrier) — who chairs the Joint Committee on Advanced Communications and Information Technology, which will likely take them up once the bills are filed — that the House send all eight. Meeks said that he had been in communication with all of the lawmakers involved and was confident they could work together. He asked that the full slate be sent so that all options could be on the table. “Give us the flexibility so we can hash all that out in the committee process,” he said.

Rep. David Ray (R-Maumelle), a right-wing go-to guy for corporate power, spoke vociferously against even considering King’s proposals.

Whether or not all of King’s measures were necessary for a legitimate reform effort, Ray pontificating against all six proposals — using boilerplate lobbyist talking points — gives a strong indication that the crypto industry was spooked by King’s proposals and working overtime to kill them before they had a chance to go up for discussion.

Curiously, all but a handful of Democrats voted “Present,” which counts the same as a “No,” on the King proposals, effectively doing Ray’s bidding (Rep. David Whitaker of Fayetteville outright voted No on them). This despite the fact that the resolutions take what might normally be considered a progressive approach, using taxes and fees to regulate a corporation that harms the public and the environment.

Four of the six King proposals would have gotten over the top if Democrats had voted as a block to consider them. The added momentum could well have helped give more of a chance to the other two, as well. Instead, 15 of the 18 Democrats simply sat on their hands and let them die, bringing a smile to Ray and the crypto lobby. Unless I am missing someone, the only exceptions: Rep. Nicole Clowney (D-Fayetteville) and Rep. Stephen Magie (D-Conway) voted for all of them to advance. And after initially voting present, Rep. Vivian Flowers (D-Pine Bluff) told members she was changing course, and voted Yes on the remaining five, perhaps inspired to switch gears after listening to Ray.

King said their defeat represented a major blow to citizens concerned about problems associated with crypto mines.

“This Legislature and the governor are pro-crypto miners,” King said after the votes. “While ordinary Arkansans pay taxes and fees, the crypto miners are using our cheap energy and natural resources and getting a free ride thanks to their friends in the Legislature.”

Those suspicious of the crypto lobby’s influence on the process will likely have their hackles up after today’s proceedings. Ray’s attacks often seemed focused on specific details of King’s proposals, despite the fact that today’s vote was not an up or down vote on a bill but simply a question of whether to consider the measure at all. It’s difficult to determine what made two of the proposals worthy of an exception from the usual fiscal-session limitations but not the other six, which covered the same general issues.

House Speaker Matthew Shepherd told members that it wouldn’t necessarily be possible to combine bills given the constitutional requirement that a final bill substantially align with the resolution to consider it in the fiscal session. In other words, if there is a portion of one of King’s proposals that lawmakers want to add to one of the remaining proposals, that may prove impossible depending on the specific language. This is why Meeks wanted all of the proposals, even though he thought it was likely that the committee would pass just two or three — he wanted to have the leeway to cover all potential issues that might come up once discussion and debate unfolded in committee. But his argument couldn’t persuade enough members; the majority of House members did support the King proposals, but they fell short of the two-thirds threshold.

In contrast to his lengthy diatribes against the King proposals, Ray supported the other two resolutions, one of them co-sponsored by Rep. Rick McClure (R-Malvern) and Sen. Joshua Bryant (R-Rogers), who also co-sponsored the original Act 851.

As written, their proposal addresses at least some of the concerns raised by their original bill. The measure would impose noise mitigation requirements and require facilities to be located 2,000 feet from the nearest home or business, or in an area zoned for industrial use.

It also adds language prohibiting 15% or more ownership interest in a crypto mine by the citizens or government of certain countries, including China. (I am skeptical that this will be easily enforceable given the opaque web of shell companies behind these operations, but the China issue seems to be particularly popular among lawmakers.)

Finally, in its current language, the McClure-Bryant proposal would restore the ability of cities or counties to regulate the crypto mines as they see fit, though it does create new prohibitions on local control regarding crypto mines operating in a home. Is this a loophole for the industry or a needed clarification? Will be interesting to track how this plays out in committee.

As pointed out in the House Rules committee, some of the language about local control appears incomplete (probably just due to a drafting oversight). This is one of the biggest issues I’ll be watching as the bill is filed and goes under revision. I found it noteworthy that Ray kept saying the only two areas of concern were Chinese ownership and noise. That glosses over a number of other issues, but he was particularly careful to avoid mentioning anything about local control.

Critics of Act 851 and crypto mines may be leery of McClure and Bryant given their apparent heavy involvement with crypto advocacy groups in writing the law to begin with. As King’s co-sponsor in the House, Miller, explained in the House Rules committee in response to why he didn’t simply defer to McClure and Bryant: “I don’t let the same man take me snipe hunting twice.”

Some of the comments from McClure and Bryant don’t exactly inspire confidence. During the debate on the Senate side, Bryant said the crypto miners weren’t trying to cause trouble. “They simply were looking for a preemptive approach to protect their investment,” he said, which just about the definition of crony capitalism. (Bryant voted against consideration for King’s proposals, while King voted for consideration of Bryant’s.)

For his part, during the House Rules meeting yesterday, McClure took offense to the notion that the shady Satoshi Group, a dark-money crypto advocacy group, had written the bill, saying that he had done the heavy lifting on the language. But he said he might have made a mistake by copy and pasting language from a Missouri bill that … had been sent to him by the Satoshi Group. So. There you go.

McClure also did not inspire confidence with his insistence that the problem all came down to “unintended consequences.” In fact, the law’s consequences were obviously intentional and clear as day. And they worked exactly as intended: Act 851 was the law that a crypto mine operation leaned on to sue the quorum court in Arkansas County after county officials made efforts to regulate it.

The McClure proposal passed easily and a bill will now be filed.

“The fix was in,” King said. “The same [lawmakers] that deceived the people are now the ones that brought another Trojan horse.”

King had the same critique of the other resolution that passed, co-sponsored by Rep. Jeremiah Moore (R-Clarendon) and Sen. Missy Irvin (R-Mountain View). The Moore-Irvin proposal would impose a new state-level regulatory system, as well as state-level noise restrictions and fees.

Like the McClure-Bryant proposal, it appears to positively address some issues with crypto mining and Act 851 as written.

King, however, believes that the final product on the two bills will wind up being lipstick on a pig, and that the measures potentially could make things worse by planting new loopholes or advantages for existing crypto mines or new entrants.

Commentary during discussion of the measure in the House yesterday certainly suggested the possibility that elements could be watered down. Suggestions floated included eliminating any fees imposed on crypto mines (can’t have that!) and nixing authority or enforcement power from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (not a Republican fave) in favor of shifting more power to the attorney general’s office (where Ray’s old boss, Tim Griffin, is a highly partisan bruiser always happy to help out well-heeled allies). Moore said he was generally amenable to changes.

Today’s discussion was dominated by the ravenous Ray. His bumptious recitation of talking points is not worth documenting in full — most of his comments were pedantic, semantic, irrelevant, tendentious or flat-out wrong. All of the points he raised would obviously be suited to a debate on a bill itself, with any legitimate quibbles solvable by amendment.

Ray, feverishly motivated to block King’s proposals from even being considered, was dismissive of concerns about water usage and ignored environmental questions and fears about overuse of electricity. The only problems, he said, were China, noise and vicinity. He insisted that the King proposals had nothing to do with those issues, though some quite clearly did. Ray sometimes descended into pure gibberish, fretting that eight proposals would simply be too untidy to manage.

“I think that passing a law just because we don’t understand something is a bad way of rushing into passing a law and legislating,” he said, in a hilarious bit of lobbyist ju jitsu (that’s precisely what happened with Act 851 as a lobbyist-penned bill late in the session, and now Ray is running interference on fixing it a year later!).

Some of his comments revealed that his objections were ultimately rooted in a hatred of regulation of the industry. He was, naturally, appalled at the idea of crypto miners having to get liscensed, give public notice about opening a new facility, or otherwise face significant oversight from state or local governments. Was this an expression of his rigid right-wing ideology or the desires of the crypto organizations willing to spend big to get their way? Well, this is a “beer or tacos” question. The answer is: both, dummy.

Ray said that if the state imposed significant fees on the crypto miners for massive overuse of energy, relying on the same grid the public does, then crypto miners would no longer be able to turn a profit. Makes you think.

I will follow up in the coming days with more details on the McClure and Moore proposals. Here is a quick summary of the aims of the King proposals that were blocked from consideration today:

HR1014 would ban the use of computers or software manufactured in certain designation nations, including China and Russia, from being used in crypto mines.

HR1015 would repeal Act 851 altogether, restore local control for counties and cities to fully regulate crypto mines (including noise ordinances), ban ownership by certain foreign nationals (again, China clearly the main target), and fleshes out regulatory requirements for new or existing crypto mines operating in the state.

HR1016 would require businesses to file notice with the Arkansas Public Service Commission and local government six months before before purchasing or leasing land for a crypto mine.

HR1017 would task the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission with monitoring crypto mines’ impact on water usage and grants it authority to take action against a mine if the impact of overusage “threatens the critical groundwater supplies of the state.” The Arkansas Public Service Commission, meantime, would be tasked with monitoring electrictricty usage and may direct a utility to cut off power to the mine if it threatens the reliability of the grid.

HR1018 would require crypto mines to be licensed under the Uniform Money Services Act (it would repeal the section of Act 851 that stated that crypto mines “shall not be considered a money transmitter under the Uniform Money Services Act”).

HR1019 would impose fees on crypto mines for over-usage of electricity, with a fee schedule based on megawatts above certain thresholds. (For more on HR1019, see here).

The post House approves two proposals for crypto mining regulation, rejects six others appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Brian Chilson

A federal judge on Wednesday scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for April 30 in a case challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the LEARNS Act that bans “indoctrination” in public schools.

Little Rock Central High School parents, students and a teacher involved in an AP African American Studies pilot course that received scrutiny for potentially violating the “indoctrination” ban, filed the lawsuit in late March against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Education Secretary Jacob Oliva.

In Wednesday’s order, U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky said he granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ request for an “expedited briefing and consideration.” He denied part of the request because plaintiffs could have filed their complaint and preliminary injunction months ago, he wrote.

“Defendants should not be short-changed on the two weeks provided by the Local Rules to develop their responsive arguments just because Plaintiffs chose not to file for those many months,” Rudofsky wrote.

Attorney General Tim Griffin argued in a motion filed on Tuesday that the plaintiffs’ request for expedited treatment should be denied because they put off filing the case and delayed seeking preliminary injunctive relief for more than a year.

The LEARNS Act was signed into law last March and went into effect immediately due to its emergency clause. The law, which was a priority for Sanders, makes several changes to the state’s education system, including increasing the state’s minimum teacher salary to $50,000 and creating a school voucher program.

“Only three weeks ago did Plaintiffs finally file suit, but even then, they continued to sit idle,” Griffin said. “Indeed, far from immediately seeking emergency relief, they waited weeks to file a new complaint and then only made it around to filing their preliminary-injunction motion just before midnight on April 12. Plaintiffs’ actions undermine their second request that the Court ‘expedite briefing and consideration.’”

Griffin said “because plaintiffs’ motion presents legal issues identical to those that would be resolved on a motion to dismiss,” the court should conserve resources by setting the defendants’ deadline for both responses no earlier than May 6.

In Wednesday’s order, Rudofsky partly agreed with Griffin, saying “avoiding the inefficiency discussed above is good cause to extend the deadline” for the defendants’ responses until seven days after the court decides the preliminary injunction request.

He gave Griffin until April 26 to respond to the preliminary injunction motion and plaintiffs until April 29 to respond. He set the preliminary injunction hearing for 3 p.m., April 30.

Background

On March 25, civil rights attorneys Mike Laux and Austin Porter Jr. filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of three Little Rock Central High students, their parents and AP African American Studies teacher Ruthie Walls.

The suit stems from an AP African American Studies course being piloted in six Arkansas schools, including Central High, that received scrutiny after Sanders signed an executive order banning “indoctrination” on her first day in office. Similar language was later incorporated into the LEARNS Act.

The state education department abruptly removed the advanced placement course from its list of approved courses days before the start of the 2023-2024 school year last August. Although students were allowed to continue taking the course, it would not count toward graduation credit.

According to a statement issued by the Laux Law Group, Section 16 of the LEARNS Act, which bans “indoctrination,” is “a brazen, political attempt to silence speech and expression” that the governor and education secretary disagree with.

“The LEARNS Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,” the statement reads. “It is unworkably vague and oppressive, and it discriminates on the basis of race. Section 16 is just another front in the culture war being waged by right-wing ideologues.”

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a request for expedited briefing and consideration on April 12.

An amended complaint also filed on April 12 removed an unnamed parent and student as plaintiffs and added the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and high school debate teacher, Colton Gilbert.

Members of the Arkansas State Board of Education were added as defendants, joining Sanders and Oliva.

The amended complaint argues the portion of the law banning “indoctrination” should be void for vagueness, contains content and viewpoint-based discrimination and discriminates on the basis of race.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on Facebook and Twitter.

The post Federal judge schedules hearing in Arkansas LEARNS lawsuit appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Bentonville-based breakfast restaurant The Buttered Biscuit is now hiring for its new Chenal Parkway location, slated to open in late May or early June. In December, the restaurant announced plans to expand into Little Rock with two stores to open in 2024. The second branch, the release said, will open in the Heights neighborhood at 5018 Kavanaugh Blvd. sometime later this year.

Founded by Sam Russell (“Chief Biscuit Officer”) and Anna Russell, The Buttered Biscuit has two Bentonville stores, as well as one each in Springdale and Fayetteville.

This morning there was a press conference at the UA Pulaski Technical College Culinary Arts and Hospitality Management Institute about a “Project Biscuit” partnership between the school’s culinary department and The Buttered Biscuit. We’re not sure what that means exactly, but according to a release, attendees were able to watch culinary students “hard at work in the kitchen preparing their own versions of The Buttered Biscuit’s scratch-made biscuits.”

UPDATE: It was announced at the press conference that The Buttered Biscuit’s Project Biscuit Charitable Fund will provide a $5,000 scholarship to the Culinary Arts and Hospitality Management Institute at Pulaski Tech. The scholarship will be awarded in the fall 2024 semester, the release said.

The Buttered Biscuit opened in Bentonville in 2017.

The post The Buttered Biscuit opening soon at the Promenade at Chenal appeared first on Arkansas Times.

A staid but supportive audience turned out to Club Sway in downtown Little Rock Wednesday night for a performance from Q, a contestant on Season 16 of “Rupaul’s Drag Race,” the finals of which air on Friday. (#teamsapphira here, for the record!) Q, known on the season for immaculate runway looks crafted with a meticulous seamstress’s hand, is also a dynamic mover on stage — and a comedy queen, at that. 

Her runway looks last night were, as ever, stunning, the first being a sort of “Lucille Ball takes the Magical Mystery Tour, but dressed as a Popple.” (Eat your heart out, Sid & Marty Krofft!)

Stephanie Smittle

The second feather-centric outfit — undoubtedly handmade by Q herself — I’m dubbing “excessively wealthy bird gets engaged; throws opulent wedding party for all her bird friends.” It was delightful, as were the performances from local queens like Envy S. Hart, Gianna Colucci, Pagan Holliday, Lady Kassandra the White and the acrobatic Salem Savant.

Stephanie Smittle

Stephanie Smittle

Stephanie Smittle

Stephanie Smittle

Arkansas has, despite some hatemongering anti-drag and anti-trans legislation, become a bit buzzy in the broader drag world in the last few years; drag queen Symone’s comedic, sartorial and artistic triumphs on Season 13 made big waves, and Fayetteville-based queen Maddy Morphosis landed at the center of an evolving conversation about queerness, straightness and representation when she landed on Season 14.

Also, just when we thought we could not love her more, Q was coerced into calling the Hogs and was a wildly good sport about it. Viva Bible Belt drag!

The post ‘Drag Race’ star Q turned a school night into a werk night at Sway appeared first on Arkansas Times.

In a ruling today that will likely please only Second Amendment advocates and the ghost of Warren Zevon, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that lawyers are entitled to carry guns into courthouses — but not courtrooms, at least not yet — around the state.

The opinion, written by Justice Shawn Womack, disagreed with a Pulaski County Circuit Court’s decision that lawyers were barred from carrying firearms into Arkansas courthouses under Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution. Section three of Amendment 80 gives the Arkansas Supreme Court superintending control over practice and procedural rules state courts, and the circuit court interpreted the amendment to mean guns were prohibited in courtrooms and courthouses until the Supreme Court said otherwise.

On appeal, the justices found the appellants — lawyers Chris Corbitt, Robert Steinbuch, and Ben Motal, on behalf of all others similarly situated — had abandoned the part of their case that dealt with taking guns into courtrooms, but the issue of lawyers bringing guns into courthouses generally was preserved for the court’s review.

After ruling Corbitt procedurally barred from bringing this case based on an earlier case Corbitt tried and lost on the same issue, the court nevertheless found the remaining appellants properly before the court so the merits could be reached. Womack wrote (emphasis added):

In interpreting the language of the statute in parts relevant to the remaining issues in this appeal, it unequivocally permits certain individuals, including 1) law enforcement officers, 2) bailiffs, and 3) officers of the court, to possess handguns in courthouses within the state.  First, each word in a statute must be given significance and meaning.  Here, the inclusion of the term “officer of the court” alongside law enforcement officers and bailiffs suggests a deliberate intent by the legislature to afford individuals falling within this category the privilege of possessing handguns in court settings.  Next, it is important to emphasize that the term “other” serves as  a determiner in this case.  If the drafters had meant for the phrase “authorized by the court” to apply to each item, they would have left out the word “other.”  As a result, attorneys, as officers of the court, are recognized under the statute as individuals authorized to possess handguns in courthouses within the state.

Because the appellants had abandoned their argument with respect to bringing guns into courtrooms, Womack said, “a decision on a challenge to the courtroom provision will be considered when it is before the court, and we will not sua sponte address it now.” (“Sua sponte” is Latin, and means “to take something up voluntarily.”)

Justice Karen Baker, dissenting from the part of the decision that allowed lawyers to bring guns into courthouses, called the majority’s hair-splitting between courthouses and courtrooms “a distinction without a difference.” Rather, Baker said, the issue should be decided under Amendment 80, since the conducting of trials is a procedural matter and the Supreme Court has control over all procedural rules. Because the Legislature cannot limit or amend Amendment 80 by statute, Baker said, statute language adopted by the Legislature does not dictate whether guns are allowed in courtrooms, and she would have affirmed the lower court’s decision based on that reasoning.

Baker’s dissent notwithstanding, Womack’s majority opinion is unsurprising in light of his earlier statements in a related case. Dissenting from the court’s earlier dismissal of a similar case brought by Corbitt, Womack devoted multiple paragraphs to the changes in the state’s gun laws with respect to guns in courthouses and courtrooms, and he was explicit in his belief that Amendment 80 did not change this analysis. He even managed to cite himself multiple times in his explanation:

Moreover, insofar as the county relies on Amendment 80, section 3, that provision commands the opposite result the county seeks. Although the constitution allows this court to establish rules concerning court practices and procedures, court rules “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.” Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 3. Substantive rights arise from substantive law, which creates, defines, and regulates the rights, duties, and powers of the parties; i.e., substantive rights are rights of substance rather than form. Edwards v. Thomas, 2021 Ark. 140, at 13, 625 S.W.3d 226, 233 (Womack, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 

It is not our role to second-guess a substantive policy determination of the General Assembly, which is exactly what section 5-73-122(b) is. See id. at 9, 625 S.W3d at 231 (Womack, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Section 5-73-122(b) unequivocally  allows “officers of the court,” i.e., attorneys, to carry handguns into courthouses. The General Assembly’s decision to vest attorneys-among others-with the ability to carry a handgun in a courthouse is substantive law, not procedural. Thus, not only does Amendment 80 not vest such policymaking with the judiciary, it expressly prohibits the judiciary from acting in areas of substantive rights under the guise of regulating pleading, practice, and procedure. See Venhaus, 285 Ark. at 28, 684 S.W.2d at 255. If this were allowed, then all substantive rights would simply exist until they somehow affected the judiciary, and the court arbitrarily deemed them procedural.

Today’s opinion essentially turns Womack’s dissent from May, which only Justice Barbara Webb joined at the time, into the law of the land. Now it’s just a question of which pistol-packin’ Perry Mason from around the Natural State will accidentally shoot himself or someone else first.

The court’s opinion in Corbitt, et al., v. Pulaski Co. Circuit Ct, et al., 2024 Ark. 65, is available here.

The post State Supreme Court says lawyers can carry guns in courthouses appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Celebrate! Maya Project announced this week that, immediately following the film screening of ‘Maya Angelou: And Still I Rise,” Friday, April 19, at the Ron Robinson Theater; Janis F. Kearney, president and founder of Celebrate! Maya Project, will moderate a discussion with Dr. Karen Bryan, executive director of Arkansas Learning through the Arts. Their discussion will center on the before, after and in-between of the “rise” of Maya Angelou, which began with childhood trauma and ended with her role as a beloved global literary icon.

Dr. Karen Bryan is a musicologist and independent scholar. Her early research focused on the field of 19th century Italian opera, completing a Fulbright fellowship on the works of Saverio Mercadante at Teatro La Scala and Ricordi.

She has since conducted archival research on African American performers of the first half of the 20th century, with particular emphasis on those active prior to Marian Anderson’s debut at the Metropolitan Opera in 1955. In addition to numerous presentations and articles, she is co-editor of Blackness in Opera, a collection of essays by leading scholars exploring the concept of race in operatic performance and composition from the late 17th to mid-20th centuries. Her recent projects center on the contributions of Mary Cardwell Dawson and the National Negro Opera Company, as well as the performers who came to the stage through the company’s productions. She has served as a faculty member and administrator at the University of South Florida, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Arizona State University and Georgia State University. Currently, she is executive director of Arkansas Learning Through the Arts and is the coordinator for the Hidden Voices program of the Denyce Graves Foundation. She is also completing work on a volume exploring the impact and legacy of Mary Cardwell Dawson and the National Negro Opera Company.

For more information on the Celebrate! Maya Project, visit the website here.

The post Announcing Still I Rise: A Conversation, following the Angelou film Screening Friday, April 19 appeared first on Arkansas Times.

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday reversed and remanded a Crittenden County Circuit Court’s denial of a request by Damien Echols for further DNA testing of evidence from the West Memphis Three case.

The 4-3 decision, authored by Justice Karen Baker, turned on the court’s interpretation of a 2001 law that allows someone “convicted of a crime” to file a petition to vacate and set aside a judgment if the person claims “scientific evidence, not available at the time of trial, establishes the petitioner’s actual innocence.”

While the West Memphis Three story is well known, a bit of background is useful here to clarify the procedural issues addressed in the decision.

The bodies of three 8-year-old boys, Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Steven Branch, were discovered in a muddy creek behind the Robin Hood Hills neighborhood of West Memphis in May 1993. With “satanic panic” in full swing in Arkansas and the nation, police attention quickly turned to Echols — an 18-year-old high-school dropout who liked heavy metal music.

West Memphis police extracted a questionable confession from Jessie Misskelley Jr., a 16-year-old with an IQ of 72, that implicated Echols and 17-year-old Jason Baldwin. Prosecutors then charged the three teenagers with three counts each of capital murder. Misskelley was tried separately, convicted, and (because he was a minor at the time of the murders) sentenced to life in February 1994. Baldwin and Echols were tried together the following month and convicted. Baldwin, also a minor at the time of the murders, was sentenced to life while Echols received the death penalty.

Years of attempts to prove the innocence of the West Memphis Three followed. Ultimately, in 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded a lower court decision that denied Echols’ motion for a new trial based on DNA evidence. But before a hearing on Echols’ petition could be heard, the three men in 2011 reached an agreement with prosecutors that would free them from jail.

Each defendant entered an “Alford plea,” a legal mechanism that allows a person to maintain his innocence while acknowledging the state has enough evidence that a jury could possibly convict him if the matter went to trial. As part of their Alford pleas, Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were sentenced to time served plus an additional ten years’ suspended sentence and were released from prison.

Starting in 2020, Echols began communicating with Scott Ellington, the prosecuting attorney for the judicial district that includes Crittenden County. Echols discussed the possibility of performing additional DNA testing on evidence from the case using a newly developed “wet-vacuum based” collection method using a device called an M-Vac. By 2021, Keith Chrestman had replaced Ellington as prosecutor, and he said Echols would have to petition the court for permission to do the DNA testing.

In January 2022, Echols filed a petition pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, the Arkansas statute on DNA and other testing. Specifically, he sought M-Vac testing of ligatures used to bind the murder victims. He argued the ligatures had produced useful DNA evidence in earlier testing and that more precise testing now might serve to identify the true killers. The state responded that Echols was not entitled to relief because he is no longer incarcerated, though Echols pointed out Act 1780 did not require a person to be in prison before in order to petition the court for testing.

The circuit court agreed with the state and denied Echols’ petition. It found that Echols was not entitled to relief — and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition — because Echols was not in custody.

In reversing the circuit court’s decision today, the Supreme Court answered an important procedural question when they held that entering an Alford plea did not prevent a person from filing a petition under Act 1780.

A petition for relief under Act 1780 is treated as a petition for habeas corpus, the court said, and habeas corpus petitions have traditionally not been allowed when a person pleads guilty. However, the court explained, an Alford plea is not a standard guilty plea, since it does not require an admission of guilt. Accordingly, Echols was not barred from seeking relief simply because of his plea agreement.

Turning to the merits of the appeal, the Supreme Court held the circuit court erred in its reading of Act 1780. The justices agreed with Echols’ argument that the statute does not require a petitioner to be in custody at the time of the petition and allows any “person convicted of a crime” to seek relief through DNA testing.

The majority’s opinion says:

the plain language in sections 16-112-201 and -202 unambiguously permits “a person convicted of a crime” to petition for additional DNA testing to demonstrate the person’s actual innocence pursuant to Act 1780. This language imposes no requirement that a petitioner must be in State custody to seek relief pursuant to Act 1780, and we decline to read such a requirement into the statutes. The circuit court and the State employ reasoning that hinges on the legislative history and purpose underlying Act 1780 and our common-law interpretations of traditional habeas relief; however, resorting to these tools of statutory construction is unnecessary in the present case given the clear language of Act 1780.

Based on this, the Supreme Court found the circuit court’s interpretation of Act 1780 to be incorrect, reversed the denial of Echols’ petition, and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Justice Barabra Webb, joined by Justice Shawn Womack and Special Justice Marcia Hearnsberger, dissented. Webb argued the DNA testing Echols seeks would not prove his actual innocence, because:

Echols’s first conviction did not rely on DNA evidence. Rather, the jury was presented with evidence that Echols knew facts about the case that were not public knowledge; fibers found on the victims’ clothes were microscopically similar to clothing found in Echols’s home; multiple witnesses testified that Echols confessed to the murders; and multiple witnesses placed him near the crime scene at the time of the murders. DNA testing therefore cannot prove Echols’s innocence.

Therefore, according to the dissent, “the majority’s decision obliterates any sense of finality in our criminal justice system.”

Rather than addressing the majority’s holding, Webb’s dissent focused on the history of habeas corpus prior to Act 1780, concluding that relief under the statute is limited to people currently in custody.

As the majority explained in a footnote, however:

Absent from the dissenting opinion is any regard for the plain language of Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 and -202 despite the fact that the language is clear. We have explained that “[t]he courts have no power to legislate or to construe a statute to mean anything other than what it says, if it is plain and unambiguous.” Undeterred by this longstanding precedent, the dissent looks beyond the plain language to the history and purpose underlying traditional habeas corpus relief, as well as the legislative history of Act 1780 as it relates to Illinois law, in support of its position that “the majority has decided to reimagine habeas relief as encompassing any ‘person convicted of a crime’ whether or not they be in State custody.” To the contrary, it was the legislature that elected to permit persons convicted of a crime to seek relief under Act 1780. The legislature imposed no threshold requirement that a person must be in State custody to seek this relief, and we decline to read such a requirement into the statutes.

Though not important as far as the majority’s opinion is concerned, the dissent relies heavily on a mischaracterization of the “evidence” used to convict the West Memphis Three. Echols was not convicted based on DNA specifically because DNA from Echols, Baldwin, or Misskelley was not, and has never been, found at the scene. The dissent’s reference to “information” and “fibers” pretends as if that evidence, on its own, was what led to Echols’ conviction, ignoring since-discredited “expert” testimony offered during the case: testimony about the occult from someone with a mail-order doctorate, the testimony of an unreliable jail-house snitch, and the prosecution’s introduction of a knife that had nothing to do with the case, among other glaring errors.

The dissent also wildly overstates the fallout the majority’s opinion will have. It claims the decision “opens the doors for thousands of individuals to file Act 1780 petitions, inundating our courts and exposing the State to significant financial strain if it is to pay for scientific testing for any person ever convicted of a crime.”

In fact, the statute only allows testing where the scientific evidence was “not available at trial” or, if the facts would establish the petition’s innocence by clear and convincing evidence, where the “scientific predicate for the claim could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” The dissent ignores this additional hurdle and disingenuously pretends as if any person convicted of any crime can now demand DNA testing.

With the case remanded to the Crittenden County Circuit Court, Echols should get the DNA testing he requested. Since an admission that the West Memphis Three are innocent would likely cost the state millions in a wrongful conviction lawsuit, however, it seems likely the state will continue to fight Echols’ efforts to clear his name to the bitter end.

The post State Supreme Court says Damien Echols can seek further DNA testing in West Memphis Three case appeared first on Arkansas Times.

What a great editor! Pic from La Hacienda.

The post The Benji’s birthday open line appeared first on Arkansas Times.

The Sue Cowan Williams Library, a branch of the Central Arkansas Library System, is reopening Friday.

Located at 1800 S. Chester St., the library has been closed since early November, when it shuttered for renovations, which include reimagined areas for teens, studying and podcasting; a more robust makerspace; and the addition of a community kitchen. Also, a new mezzanine has been constructed, which will provide extra space for staff. Everything’s received a fresh coat of colorful paint and the floors have been redone as well. Details on the progression of the project can be found on the CALS blog.

Perhaps the most noticeable change is that the library’s entrance has been moved to the west side of the building, facilitating easier access for the students of Dunbar Magnet Middle School, which is right across the street.

CALS

To celebrate the reopening, Williams Library is offering three events: 1) Family Dinner Night, a ticketed ($75 for adults; $15 for kids 5-12; and free for children under five) fundraiser held tonight from 6:30-9 p.m. that will feature musical performances from Bijoux and the Central High Jazz Band as well as food from Afrobites, Community Bakery, El Sur Street Food Co., H.O.M.E. Vegan, Mockingbird Bar & Tacos, and K. Hall & Sons; 2) a ribbon cutting on Friday morning at 9 a.m.; 3) and a free neighborhood block party from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. on Saturday, May 4 with yet-to-be-announced entertainment and food provided by H.O.M.E. Vegan and Mr. Keith’s Kettlecorn.

Williams Library first opened in 1997, four years after the passing of namesake Sue Cowan Williams, a Black educator at Dunbar High School (now the site of Dunbar Magnet Middle School) who was the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit advocating for equal salaries for Black and white teachers in the 1940s. You can read more about her work here.

The post CALS Williams Library reopens Friday appeared first on Arkansas Times.

Spring only just started, but summer is right around the corner. The bugs will soon return with vigor, and we’ll probably wonder how there was ever a time when we felt cold outside. Arkansas summers are hot and humid, and in Little Rock, the significant amount of pavement sends temperatures to the top of the thermometer.

With hopes of finding out just how hot it gets on Little Rock’s streets, the city’s sustainability office in August 2023 led groups of volunteer scientists equipped with sensors to collect temperature and humidity levels within 121 square miles. As expected, it was hot.

The study was conducted in part with CAPA Strategies. CAPA stands for Climate Adaptation Planning and Analytics, and dozens of heat island studies are being conducted in cities across the country. Little Rock was one of 18 cities to participate in the research in August.

The data collected showed that throughout the day, and into the night, Little Rock’s temperatures stay pretty high. Temperatures topped out in the morning at about 77 degrees and reached 102 around 3 p.m. By 8 p.m., the temperature had dropped a bit to 96 degrees.

CAPA Heat Watch Report

Areas with more tree cover stayed cooler than those without. During the hottest part of the study, the temperature difference spanned nearly 10 degrees.

This information confirms what we already thought: Summers in the South are rough. 

Next, the data will be used for a heat action plan that can be used to decide where the city should open cooling centers in the summer. 

Exposure to extreme heat is dangerous, leading to heat exhaustion, heat stroke, dehydration, sunburns and more. The report from CAPA explains that high temperatures also negatively effect energy and transportation infrastructure.

This not very scientific but highly realistic summer forecast from KARK Meteorologist Todd Yakoubian seems like enough of a warning sign for the summer ahead.

Put a lot of work into this. Preliminary look at the summer forecast. #ARWX pic.twitter.com/A9VmUqRIIC

— Todd Yakoubian (@ToddYakoubian) April 11, 2024

The post Hot stuff: Little Rock study to inform city heat action plan appeared first on Arkansas Times.

The new Scoops Homemade Ice Cream shop that’s been in the works at the corner of the busy downtown intersection at Third and Broadway is now open. Scoops has a Central Avenue store in Hot Springs and has been slow-churning homemade ice cream since 2003. The new Little Rock shop is its second location.

Seriously good since 2003, its website says, the menu features about 25 ice cream flavors, including cake batter, cafe latte, animal cracker, Death By Chocolate and hummingbird cake. Milkshakes, sundaes, concretes, floats and ice cream cookie sandwiches are also available. The Little Rock store also serves a handful of traditional coffee drinks, along with an ice cream coffee menu that includes a cold brew ice cream pour over, ice cream affogato and ice cream lattes. A few baked goods are also on the menu, including a croissant sandwich featuring croissants from The Croissanterie, scones from Blackberry Market and cookies from Blue Cake Honey Pies.

Ice cream for breakfast? Why not? The Little Rock store’s hours of operation are 6 a.m.-9 p.m. Mon.-Thu. and 6 a.m.-10 p.m. Fri.-Sun.

The post Scoop: New ice cream shop on Broadway is open  appeared first on Arkansas Times.

MORE PATIENTS: Active patient cards have surpassed 100,000.

Arkansas now has more than 100,000 active medical marijuana patient cards — a milestone reached this week as a group begins collecting signatures to place an expansion of the state’s medical marijuana program on the November ballot. 

In its latest update on April 13, the state Department of Finance and Administration reported 102,222 active cards, an increase of more than 8,000 from the 93,977 active cards a year ago. 

Bill Paschall, executive director of the Arkansas Cannabis Industry Association, gave credit for the increase in cards to patient advocates who have held events to educate the public about medical marijuana and how to get a card.

The association is working with patient advocate Melissa Fults and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) to hold events around the state to educate the public and provide doctors to perform certifications.

“We’re working hard to get more patients,” Fults said. “That’s our goal: To get all the patients that need to be patients.”

Fults said she’s holding events where patients can be certified for $50 in areas with limited access or with many low-income people who might not be able to obtain a card otherwise. Fults plans to hold events in Texarkana, West Memphis, Pine Bluff, Monticello and El Dorado by June.

Arkansans will also be able to sign the petition to put the proposed medical marijuana expansion amendment on the ballot, she said. 

The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024 would allow pharmacists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants to certify patients for the program in addition to doctors. The measure would also allow those health care professionals to certify patients for any debilitating illness, not just the 18 qualifying conditions under current law.

The measure would also eliminate the state prohibition on pre-rolled marijuana and would allow patients to grow up to seven mature cannabis plants of their own.  

The cannabis association is also working with Ask Ethel, a group of industry professionals who hold events across the state to educate the public about medical marijuana. The group is led by Annie Iselin of BOLD Team in Cotton Plant and Ryan Kenaga of River Valley Relief Cultivation in Fort Smith. 

The next Ask Ethel events will be held from 2 to 4 p.m. on May 18 in Jonesboro, Fayetteville, Mountain Home, Little Rock, Texarkana, Heber Springs, West Memphis and Hot Springs. (Arkansans may not be able to sign petitions at these events, since Iselin said she does not promote or sell anything at Ask Ethel events.) 

Iselin will also hold events with doctors tomorrow in Pine Bluff and in Blytheville on May 11, she said. Arkansans can sign the medical marijuana amendment petitions at those events, she said.

The amendment needs 90,704 verified signatures by July 5 to make the ballot. The campaign has 250 paid canvassers plus volunteers collecting signatures across the state, Paschall said. 

Arkansans can sign the petition at the state’s 38 dispensaries as well as at the campaign’s headquarters at 900 S. Rodney Parham and in Colt Square in Fayetteville. 

Stronger Arkansas, a ballot question committee aligned with Gov. Sarah Sanders, formed last month to oppose the medical marijuana expansion proposal and several other amendments. The group reported this week that it has raised $250,000, all from businessman Ronnie Cameron. Cameron, the chairman of chicken company Mountaire, donated $1.25 million to a group that worked to defeat an adult-use or “recreational” marijuana amendment in Arkansas in 2022. 

Paschall said the governor has been “very clear” that she’s not a supporter of medical marijuana. 

The Arkansas Family Council has also formed a committee to oppose some amendments proposed for 2024, including the medical marijuana amendment. The group reported this week it has raised $20,577.

The post State surpasses 100K medical marijuana patients as amendment battle heats up appeared first on Arkansas Times.