Crow case dismissed, another lawsuit set for trial

In the federal lawsuit of Scott Crow v. Marty Montgomery U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson dismissed the case citing a controversial ruling by the 8th District Court of Appeals that gave Montgomery and others individual immunity. You may remember our post entitled Split Decision where we showed you that the Court of Appeals went outside the norm and ruled in favor of Montgomery.

The Court wrote, " Ordinarily, there is no appeal from a trial court order denying summary judgment," but granted the appeal on the grounds that "Crow's allegations show that the FCDC officials may have acted unreasonably in failing to take particular measures to improve the conditions at the facility, but that does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference." Never mind the fact that case law reads "[A] defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a 'genuine' issue of fact for trial." (Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319-20)

The Court however found that the case could go on against the County but Judge Wilson tossed the case because of the wording in the ruling issued by the 8th District Court of Appeals. So not only did the Appeals Court go out of its way to let Montgomery and crew off the hook it succeeded in tanking the case as well.

Attorney Michael Rainwater issued a petition for a Writ of Mandamus compelling the 8th District Court of Appeals to toss the entire case based on its use of this phrase, "n the facts taken in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff-Respondent Scott A.] Crow, he has not made out a constitutional violation". The petition was denied but it made Judge Wilson reconsider his findings.

Forget the fact that Judge Wilson had already ruled that there was a "genuine issue of material fact" that needed to be heard by a jury. Forget the fact that the jailers put Crow in with a prisoner who had just come off confinement for beating another prisoner even though Crow was only going to be there over night. Forget the fact that Crow's confinement was due to an errant probation violation complaint and he should not have even been there in the first place. Let's just toss this whole case away because of a controversial ruling by the 8th District Court of Appeals.

Another lawsuit involving the Faulkner County Detention Center and another inmate attack was set for trial this past Tuesday. Former inmate Aaron Bradshaw is suing Sheriff Montgomery, jail administrators, and other unidentified jailers for overcrowded conditions that led to a 2004 attack on him by another inmate. The date for this trial is still yet to be set but you can bet that Rainwater will be relying on Crow's dismissal as well as the ACLU suit that was also dismissed.

It's been a sad and disgraceful display of injustices that have went by the wayside in just about every aspect of Sheriff Montgomery's tenure as sheriff. He and his staff are responsible for giving us nothing but one problem after another. Hopefully it will be a much brighter future when this administration is ended. Provided that the people of this county put a decent, hard working professional who wants to change things for the better in office. One who has the courage and commitment to get the job done and done correctly.

We here at the Faulkner County News Blog wish to send our sympathy out to the Crow family; it's been a long tough road to take standing up for what is right and just. Believe us we know this all too well. . .

The Great State of Idaho has it right

Earlier this month Sheriff Richard Leo Green of Adams County in Idaho was indicted for the misuse of public funds. Green is charged with six counts of misuse of public money in violation of Idaho Code Section 18-5701 and three counts of presentation of fraudulent accounts in violation of Idaho Code Section 18-2706.

These charges stem from Sheriff Green's use of a county issued credit card for personal purchases of around $1,200. But in the great state of Idaho these charges are felonies and Sheriff Green not only faces removal from office but also could see jail time, up to 15 years, for these infractions.

That's right he faces actual jail time for his crimes against the public's trust. We believe the state of Idaho has it right unlike here in Arkansas where a politician can admit to using public money for personal gain and go free.

Sheriff Marty Montgomery was found to have used his card to pay for his personal college tuition and other college related expenses, i.e. books. Montgomery was also found to have used his card for meals for non-county employees, hotel charges for family and friends, and other as yet to be specified purchases. But here in Arkansas Montgomery faces no charges, not even a slap on the wrist.

To further compound Montgomery's violation of the public's trust he has allowed the egregious misuse of the county's credit cards within his department without any repercussions to the violators. In fact his department gave a glowing media send off to former jail administrator Kyle Kelley who quit suddenly right before special prosecutors were to question him. The investigation revealed that the sheriff's administration took away Kelley's credit card for spending "problems" yet he remained employed in apparently good standing.

If the state of Arkansas would have had criminal laws with actual penalties for these violations of the people's tax dollars then maybe these thefts would not have happened. In our last post we talked about the need for accountability of our elected officials and the need for consequences for the misuse of public tax dollars. A good way to accomplish this is for the state legislature to adopt Idaho's idea and make the misuse of public funds a felonious act.

To that end we need to call, write, and/or email our state law makers and asked them to protect the spending of our tax dollars by sponsoring legislation that would make this kind of misuse of public money a felony.

To find out more about Idaho's law and it recent additions visit:
http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/18057KTOC.html
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/S1303.html

To contact your local state representative visit:
http://www.arkansas.gov/house/reps.php

To contact your local state senator visit:
http://www.arkansas.gov/senate/senators.php

A colossal waste

Tuesday night the JP’s heard from Attorney James Lane regarding his investigation into the misuse of public funds by members of the sheriff’s office. I was there and heard this report, I’d have to say that this investigation by Lane was a colossal waste of taxpayer’s money.

The Quorum Court F&A Committee commissioned Lane back in November on recommendation of H.G. Foster to determine exactly how much money was owed to the county and who was going to have to repay the funds. But upon completion of Lane's investigation the county knows very little more than it did before.

Lane concluded that Sheriff Montgomery still owes $3,561 for books, tuition, and other personal expenditures he made. The report also shows an amount of $12,400 for payroll that was paid to Tammy Weaver while she was unable to work because of an illness in her family, $9,747 of this amount is owed by Weaver.

Lane and CPA David Little say the sheriff’s office was able to “find” documentation for most of the reported $18,762 of poorly documented credit card purchases. It was reported that $2,133 of that amount was determined to be personal charges and is included in the bottom line. A total of $17,359 is all that is said to be owed by members of the sheriff’s office with $19,917 for cell phone charges and $13,785 in questionable spending at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club left outstanding.

What about the egregious incidents of theft and fraud where everything from Pampers to Liquor was purchased with the county’s money? Well that’s in the $13,785 left outstanding. Lane told the court that it would be an expensive and nearly impossible task to nail down the perpetrators of these expenses and recommends the court to seek policy measures to prevent reoccurrences.

I don’t know about you but we seen this one coming. After all the sheriff was allowed to use county funds to pay for admittedly personal expenses without any penalty, why shouldn’t his employees get the same luxury? Just another sad commentary of our pathetic system of justice.

Excerpts from a recent article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette concerning the egregious incidents of theft and fraud at the Faulkner County Sheriff’s Office portray me as an angry watchdog of the department. I’d have to say that this reporter hit the nail right on the head with that portrayal. Truth be told there are quite a lot of citizens angered by this and other issues that surround Sheriff Montgomery’s tenure as sheriff.

One of those individuals recently posted comments on this site stating they would be glad to send everyone a copy of the investigation that has been burned to a CD. Desmond Walls Allen’s home was burglarized in April 1998 and Allen says the Sheriff's Office wouldn't investigate the crime. A charge of residential burglary of more than $10,000 in property and nothing was being done about it. Allen found out the name of two of the perpetrators and tried to get this information to the sheriff’s office but they wouldn’t return phone calls much less pursue with an investigation.

This is all too familiar to us having experienced the same sort of inexcusable lack of action against crime in our own neighborhood. It has become as commonplace as a trip to the supermarket for victims of crime to be further victimized by our local system of justice. Our neighbor and co-author of this site has a saying, “If you want to commit a crime do it in Faulkner County and you’ll get away with it”.

With our state prisons and county jails overcrowded and allegations of illegalities in several different police agencies across the state, is it really any wonder that crime is on the increase in Arkansas bucking the national trend. A 2004 FBI report shows a 1.2 % drop in violent crime nationally from last year while here in Arkansas violent crime rose 10.8% (9.3% per 100,000). Broken down further Arkansas showed a 28.0% increase in forcible rape, 6.5% increase in robbery, and 9.8% increase in aggravated assault. Property crimes in Arkansas also increased by 11.5% with the biggest jump of 20.3% for burglaries.

Now who is to blame for the lack of criminal charges in the admitted misuse of county monies? Is it Special Prosecutor Stephen Tabor of Sebastian County for not finding probable cause? Is it Judge Charles E. Clawson Jr. for setting a very narrow focus into the spending issues? Or could it be the Quorum Court for voting for a less aggressive investigation and not turning this over to the State Police from the start? It is our belief that it is a combination of all three events that led to Montgomery and staff getting away with, as Tabor put it, egregious incidents of theft and fraud.

Allen says after reading the investigation file a grand jury should have been convened to seek charges against the abuse of county tax dollars. You can get a copy by emailing your name and address to desmond@ipa.net.

How to prevent thefts like these in the future is the next topic that will likely be addressed by the Quorum Court. A topic that was touched on by some members of the court Tuesday night as well as addressed by Lane in his recommendations. Lane recommended that the sheriff's office limit it’s number of credit cards to only a few and having a supervisor go over the receipts at the time of purchase to ensure legitimacy of the items purchased. Lane suggested termination of employment be the punishment for a violation. However JP Marvin Kelley said “we are here to set policy, not to issue writs of control”. Somehow I think Kelley misses the point.

What we need are more ‘writs of control’ and better policies in order to prevent theft. We need to cancel ALL the credit cards and only buy from stores that will use P.Os. In a county jail system this size that can pretty much guarantee thousands of dollars in purchases a year we should dictate how these purchases are made. There should be no reason why we should ever pay retail price for any food or supply purchases.

But the most important need we must demand from our elected officials is accountability. Our county tax dollars were used for clearly personal items and no one was fired, no one will have to repay over $13,000 in questionable spending, and with no consequences for this theft there is no deterrent for repeat offenses. Isn’t it time we said enough is enough? Isn’t it time we have a new and better administration at the sheriff’s office?

Election News

With the filing date for the 2006 election nearing we have been busy revamping our election page. We have added pages for every race in the county and in cooperation with the owners of a local discussion forum, the Funky Penguin, we have added a local political forum. See the link to this forum at our election page or click here.

Please use this forum to discuss issues in the upcoming election. We invite all candidates to participate in this community-based forum. We have added additional email addresses to better manage information in this very important election.

For candidate information send your emails to:
election-news@fcso.info

To send us your candidate press release use:
press-release@fcso.info

For corrections, comments, and all other election related email use:
fcvu@fcso.info

With the tremendous and continual growth in this county this will be a very important election. We need to elect candidates that understand and are ready to face this challenge.

More Hypocrisy at the FCSO

We now have a copy of the investigation into the infamous credit card scandal that has plagued the Faulkner County Sheriff’s Office and tarnished its reputation since the story broke in late 2004. In reading the comments made and the conclusions drawn we’d have to say that this investigation is so full of hypocrisy its really quite pathetic.

In Sheriff Montgomery’s and Chief Deputy Wallace’s interview on May 19th, 2005 the investigators told Montgomery they found an old account closed 3-2004 for former Jail Administrator Kyle Kelley that was not reported to the Legislative Audit Committee. In reviewing this account’s history Montgomery became angry and suggested that criminal charges be sought against Kelley.

Marty was then advised that we had located an old account closed 3-04 for Kyle Kelly. Marty stated that he had pulled Kyle's card from him in the fall of 2003 because of some problems. We then went over Kyle's charges item by item with Marty from the period of Jan 03 to Mar 04. Marty became visibly angry when charges to Lake Liquor and Springhill Wine and Spirits and numerous other obviously personal expenditures were related.

Marty stated that he was unaware of any of this and suggested that this be turned over to HG Foster for criminal consideration. Marty was advised that the Legislative Audit had apparently not seen his information. Marty repeatedly questioned Steve on how this could have gotten by them in the review procedures. Steve stated that there are probably PO's with their initials approving payment.

Yet Kyle Kelly is allowed to resign in good standing shortly before this interview was conducted. Eight days prior to talking with investigators Wallace was quoted in the Log Cabin saying,

Faulkner County jail administrator resigns

By RACHEL PARKER
LOG CABIN STAFF WRITER

[. . .]

Chief Deputy Steve Wallace said Kelley resigned Monday for personal reasons and "was not forced by any means."

"It was his choice. Who knows why people quit. It's just the best thing for them and their family," he said.

"We think a lot of him. He's been an integral part of this team ever since '97. We're going to miss him for sure. He's been a big part of what we've done. We support him in whatever he does."

Now how convenient it was for Kelley to resign when he did, a little to convenient if you asked us. Did, as Montgomery stated, the sheriff and his staff really not know what he was charging on his card? What were the problems that led the sheriff to take Kelley’s card from him in the fall of 2003? If Montgomery was so angered by these revelations of misspending that he wanted charges brought against Kelley then why was Kelley given a glowing send off in the media? Could this be part of a calculated plan to avoid criminal charges or is this coincidence just another lucky break for Sheriff Montgomery.

Speaking of lucky breaks, did you know that Chuck Lange, executive director for the Arkansas Sheriff’s Association, reluctantly paid the bills for the Seattle trip that were in question without documentation? Did you also know that Sheriff Montgomery was given the Associations credit card to pay for this trip? Was this another lucky break?

The hypocrisy of it all really stands out when you read the summary of the May 19th, 2005 investigation,

This inquiry, conducted in the form of an audit review, reveals that public funds have been used within the Sheriff's Office for personal expenditures and other budgeted funds have been used for questionable purposes with respect to the Jail and personnel.

Sheriff Martin P Montgomery:

Sheriff Montgomery has utilized his Visa Business Card Act# XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-4736 during the period Jan 1, 2003 through Dec 31, 2004 to pay for personal expenditures. These expenditures include, but are not limited to educational expenses, travel expenses for family members (San Antonio TX, Nashville TN, Seattle WA, and a family vacation to AZ), vehicle maintenance, and other questionable purchases. It should be noted that Sheriff Montgomery has made some reimbursements toward these purchases but reimbursements do not match or equal expenditures to this date.

Sheriff Montgomery did authorize Tammy Weaver (civilian employed) to take paid, administrative leave well above the amount of available time she had accrued for maternity and sickness of a child.

Sheriff Montgomery did allow his wife (Arlene Montgomery, sole occupant) to drive a county sheriff's vehicle during which time an accident occurred involving this vehicle.

Chief Deputy Steve Wallace:

Chief Deputy Wallace has utilized his Visa Business Card Act# XXXX-XXXX- XXXX- 4744 during the period Jan 1, 2003 through Dec 31, 2004 to pay for personal expenditures. These expenditures involve, but are not limited to the registration of his wife and family to attend a National Sheriff's Association Conference in Nashville TN., as well as educational classes purchases.

Other questionable expenditures on this account arise from the practice of lending the card to other Sheriff's Office personnel to utilize while on trips for prisoner transport or other travel. Examples of these types of expenditures would include meals and hotel rooms at various Casinos, etc.


Major Perry Wyse:
Major Wyse has utilized his Visa Business Card Act# XXXX- XXXX- XXXX- 0462 to pay for and not limited to, the registration of family members of Tammy Weaver and Alison Hendrix to attend the National Sheriff's Conference in Nashville TN.

Other questionable expenditures on this account arise from the practice of lending the card to other Sheriff's Office personnel to utilize while on trips for prisoner transport or other travel. Examples of these types of expenditures would include meals and hotel rooms at various Casinos.

Kyle Kelley - Jail Administrator
Kyle Kelley had utilized his Visa Business Card Act# XXXX- XXXX- XXXX- 3335 to make purchases at Liquor, Retail, and Pharmacy stores; Pay personal DirectTV bills; On-Line purchases via Pay-Pal Accounts; and grocery. Although charged with the county card the majority of these bills were paid personally by Kyle Kelley. It should be noted that Kyle Kelley has resigned his position with the Sheriff's Office and is no longer employed.

Sheriff Montgomery wanted charges brought against former Jail Administrator Kyle Kelley for obvious personal expenditures on his credit card and now revels in the lack of charges against him for the same crime.

No probable cause? Give us a break…

Changing Minds

Faced with overwhelming evidence Faulkner County resident Tim Flanigan recently changed his mind about his support of the sheriff’s office. Back in January Flanigan wrote a letter to the editor condemning the actions taken by the Quorum Court saying their "attempt control or humiliate the sheriff's department" amounts to simple "petty politics".

But after reading the 1,350 page investigative report into the credit card scandal Mr. Flanigan now believes the Quorum Court did the right thing. He is now wondering how special prosecutor Stephen Tabor could not find evidence that rises to the level of probable cause. In a new letter Flanigan writes,

I was wrong in my letter when I said that the sheriff's office does not have to be micro-managed. After reading the report, one can only conclude that we need all new management and spending controls. I only got through about 450 pages of the report but that was more than enough. Why Stephen Tabor, the Special Prosecutor from Fort Smith, was unable to determine if criminal charges should be brought is completely unbelievable. Mr. Tabor states that, "While there is ample evidence to arouse suspicion, I do not feel the evidence rises to the level of probable cause."

If you are a taxpayer of Faulkner County and if you read the report I did, I would be willing to say that not only would you be suspicious, you would be outraged. You would also be able to find probable cause and you would want our local prosecutor to go after the people listed in this report.

In the first 40 or so pages of the report I added up over $22,000 in charges, some so blatant and poorly explained that you just know the taxpayers were being taken to the cleaners. The report also gives the names of the people whose credit card was used. What is scary is that this 1,350 page report is only for the year 2004. By far the biggest reasons given were either that the person did not know the charges were made to their credit card or they gave the credit card to someone else and they did not know what was charged.

Just how many taxpayers do not know what is charged to their card unless it is a case of theft? Or would you hand your credit card to someone to use; see they have run up a bill; not even ask what they charged; and then forget that you even gave the card to anyone? These poor excuses are what the prosecutor says is not probable cause - I don't know, or I forgot.

This report is a true embarrassment to the sheriff's department. It does not need to get filed away by our local authorities and swept under the table; it needs to be investigated. I can understand now why we have so few deputies actually patrolling the county and risking their lives for us. If the sheriff's department had actual spending controls in place, we would have more money to put more deputies on the street that could arrest some people. The taxpayers of Faulkner County deserve better.

Recently I took a business trip to NW Arkansas to install a computer and networking system at our warehouse. My boss gave me his personal credit card with his name on it for gas expenses. I used this card without any questions from gas station attendants.

While there I needed to get a couple of cables and other various items to complete the installation so I called the home office and asked to use the card to purchase these items, I also asked to use it for lunch. Again I was able to use the card without too much trouble, the guy at the local Radio Shack was looking intently at the back of the card while I signed the slip. I told I wasn’t the person who was issued the card but I was his employee. After looking at my driver’s license he completed the transaction.

Now I should note that I signed my name to each credit card slip, as I was the authorized agent of the card holder making the transaction. Now these transactions were perfectly fine because I got the permission of the entity responsible for paying the card before the purchases were made. In the many incidents in question at the sheriff’s office however, the people responsible for repaying the charges, you and me, the taxpayer, did not authorize these "agents" to use those card for the personal items that were purchased.

This unauthorized use the very definition of theft and for Stephen Tabor, who is incidentally up for re-election, not to find efficient probable cause is inexcusable. I’d say that is where the politics lie in this case.

Lack of officers to patrol the county, the lay-off of part time deputies for political reasons, the non-enforcement of laws, the lack of charges in the credit card scandal, and the lawsuits of neglected inmate care have blackened the image of the sheriff’s office, yet the sheriff and his staff remain employed. Sheriff Montgomery is either leading a charmed life or he "knows where all the bodies are buried."

{Editor's note: The above quotes were taken from letters published at the Log Cabin Democrat. Please visit the link to the entire letters as written by Mr. Flanigan}

A fair and just system of law

Is it possible to have a fair and just system of law in this country? Judging by the events of the past few years We’d have to say no. In this county we have a system of law enforcement that has been allowed to neglect their duties and allow crimes to go unpunished and fines to go uncollected. We have a system of law enforcement that has been allowed to “steal” taxpayer’s money by spending it on personal items while not receiving any criminal charges and are allowed to remain employed. We have a system of law enforcement that has been allowed to disregard the safety of inmates and not be held individually liable for this neglect. And now it seems that a Federal District Judge is considering allowing this system of law enforcement to neglect the rights and safety of inmates and not be held liable in their official capacity as well.

In the case of Scott Crow v. Marty Montgomery, U.S. District Judge Wm. R. Wilson wrote a response to a Writ of Mandamus before the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals where he says that he will likely reconsider and dismiss the case against the county in light of a statement made by the Court of Appeals in an earlier decision. Judge Wilson writes,

In the penultimate paragraph of its decision, the Court expressed its view on the merits of Crow’s official capacity claim, an issue that was not before the Court on Defendants’ interlocutory appeal:

Crow alleges, at most, institution-wide deficiencies which were known to these supervisory officials but over which they had only partial control. On these facts, we refuse to hold supervisory jail officials liable for acts that may or may not have contributed to Crow’s injury in June of 2001. In short, there is no record evidence of anything beyond the FCDC officials’ simple negligence. Thus, on the facts taken in the light most favorable to Crow, he has not made out a constitutional violation.

[. . .]

If the Court dismisses the Writ of Mandamus as inappropriate, as I think that it should, it is most likely that I will reconsider and dismiss the case against the county in light of the quoted paragraph.

It seems clear to me that this is not an earthquake type of case that would cause the Court to employ the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

Well it may not be an earthquake case to the Judges but I guarantee you that it was to Scott Crow. Now in the original ruling by the district court Judge Wilson denied a motion for summary judgment by the county stating there is a genuine issue of material fact in question. The County’s lawyer, Michael Rainwater, filed an appeal to the 8th District Court of Appeals asking for qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. §1983 from individual liability.

In a ruling that the Appeals Court itself calls as out of the ordinary they over turn the District Court’s denial for summary judgment and grant the appeal for qualified immunity. Now this in itself sets a disturbing standard that will make it harder for inmates to get justice for injuries sustained due to the neglect and/or abuse committed by jailers all across the U.S. But to now have the District Judge state his intention to dismiss based solely on an extraordinary ruling is pushing this standard to a dangerous level.

The precedence set in this case should it be dismissed is far reaching. It will allow jail administrators to neglect the needs of inmates without fear of any civil and maybe even criminal liability. Have we as a society really come to the point where our rights are only as good as our standing in the community?

As predicted the Appeals Court has denied the writ of mandamus and sent this case back to Judge Wilson for adjudication. It is now up to him to decide once again if a jury will hear the facts in this case or if he will set the system of justice back a few hundred years.

The facts of this case must be heard. If you feel as we do and want to help call Judge Wilson’s office at (501) 604-5140 and express your concerns about dismissing this case. And if your so inclined call or email the local media outlets and ask them to do a story about this case.

Well, well, well

Well, well, well is all that can be said about last night’s Quorum Court meeting. Marilyn Clifton was scheduled to address the court on the topic of lack of law enforcement but was unable to attend. In her place was an on again, off again, part time investigator for the sheriff’s office, Jim Hedrick, an investigator we are all too familiar with.

Hedrick got up and introduced himself and then proceeded to scold the members of the court for cutting the sheriff’s office budget by $250,000. This he says has led to his dismissal and has left the county unsafe.

“There are many times that we have only 2 deputies on duty for the entire county”, Hedrick adds, “when the 2 deputies were shot recently they were the only ones on duty, what if my wife needed a deputy to respond, what would we have done?”

While these are very good points, Jim, but you are however wrong about this being a budgetary problem. In a very polite way F&A committee members, JPs Wells, Blankenship, and Kellar, informed Mr. Hedrick that they have not cut the overall budget at the sheriff’s office but simply split its appropriations to quarterly rather that annually. In fact JP Wells told him the sheriff’s budget has increase dramatically in the past 4 years.

Treasurer Regina Oakley then tells Hedrick that the sheriff’s office has over $56,000 appropriated for part-time employees with $48,000 left in its budget at the time. She adds that last year Sheriff Marty Montgomery returned $112,000 from his budget. In what we believe to be a ploy to divert the public’s attention from the spending issues that has led to the quarterly appropriations.

One has to feel sorry for Jim’s plight, well almost. Ironically it was the actions and/or inactions of then investigator Hedrick that has led us in part to write our site and now to see him complaining about the lack of law enforcement is priceless.

This is just another shining example of Sheriff Montgomery’s wonderful administration. It appears that instead of admitting there is a problem with spending at his department and working to correct it he returns money back to the county while leaving us citizens ultimately unsafe.

I had a chance to discuss my feelings with Mr. Hedrick after the meeting that led to him getting very upset. It seems he’s rather disturbed about his name being published at this site and has threaten to sue us. I tried to tell him that we have only published the truth about our experiences with his performance as investigator but that didn’t go over well. He ultimately had to be calmed down by Candidate for Sheriff Karl Byrd who was in attendance.

Also in attendance at this meeting was candidate for County Judge and State Representative Preston Scroggin who was there undoubtedly to hear a report about the newest boom business that is about to hit this County, the drilling for natural gas.

County Administrator Mike Hutchens told the court about his and County Judge John Wayne Carter’s recent trip to Cleburne TX. This trip was to investigate what kind of impact this industry will have on the county economically and environmentally since this town had 41 wells. This biggest concern the court shown was for the growth that will likely occur from this.

Hutchens stated that the projected growth for this county already will put us at the third largest county in the state by the next census even before this industry’s plan hit the books. This raises concerns about traffic, infrastructure, and public safety that must be addressed in the real near future by the court.
Hutchens adds that from his visit to TX it is clear that these gas drilling companies are will to work with the county in alleviate any problems that will arise.

Further research is going to have to be done before the court will entertain any regulating ordinances for this win fall industry. In our opinion the research must include environmental impact studies that target the long term effects on the county’s water table from the deep well injections of waste water used in the drilling.

All in all it was a very productive and informative meeting…

Lack of enforcement

On Feb. 21st the Quorum Court will hear from Marilyn Clifton about the lack of law enforcement in her area. We wish to invite all of you that are concerned about this issue to attend this meeting. We started this site because of this very issue, the lack of and/or the incompetence of the sheriff’s office when it comes to enforcing the law. During this site’s run we have seen an astounding lack of accountability in nearly every aspect of the sheriff’s department ran by Sheriff Marty Montgomery.

Everything from not responding to calls, not listing an obvious suspect in the shooting of our dogs, losing evidence in that case, and not arresting a man who shot in the direction of his neighbor, to the admitted misuse of public funds for the sheriff’s tuition and egregious incidents of theft and fraud of the public’s money within the sheriff’s department. But that’s not the end of their incredible list of inactions.

We as a county still have millions in overdue fines that the sheriff is in charge of collecting but hasn’t. We know of one particular case adjudicated in Nov. 2004 where the offender was ordered to pay fines and cost of just over $900 and $150 in restitution for the crimes he had committed but has failed to pay any of it. This individual was recently given another 6 months to pay these fines by the sheriff’s and victims services’ offices because of his claims of poverty. We find this hard to believe since this man owns his own home, motor home, about 8 cars, a “welding” shop, and at least $20,000+ in auto repair tools that he’s not allowed to use for business purposes. Is it any wonder why the county is owed millions of dollars when the sheriff’s office takes such a sluggish approach to its collection?

Now it is still unclear at this point exactly what has transpired in Ms. Clifton’s area that has lead her to address the Quorum Court about this issue but it certainly needs to be addressed. We will be there to express our views and concerns; we hope to see you there as well…

Speaking of Lawsuits. . .

There is a case coming up this month in Federal Court involving a man who was beaten by as many as 4 inmates while being at the Faulkner County Detention Center for less than an hour. Scott A. Crow filed a lawsuit back in June 2002 alleging violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Crow's jaw was broken in 3 places that required surgery and metal plates to put it back together.

In an appeal from the United States District Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Arkansas, No. 03-3859, the district court denied a summary judgment motion for qualified immunity made by defendants Marty Montgomery, Kyle Kelly, and Gene Stephens. The district court found genuine issues of material fact existed and said the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense. The US District Court of Appeals reversed the decision and gave the defendants immunity from individual liability; however the lawsuit proceeds against the County. If we look back at the court’s ruling we see something interesting,

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual
punishments." U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take "reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates [and] . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (quotations omitted). In order to establish a constitutional violation, Crow must show: (1) that his incarceration in cell 305 posed a substantial risk of serious harm (objective component), and (2) the FCDC officials actually knew of but disregarded, or were deliberately indifferent to, Crow's health or safety (subjective component). Pagels v.
Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir. 1998).

For purposes of this appeal we assume that Crow's incarceration in cell 305
posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Crow and that the FCDC officials were aware of the risk. However, we reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity because, as a matter of law, the facts alleged by Crow do not establish that the FCDC officials disregarded any known risk alleged by Crow.

[Emphasis added]

The facts do not establish that the sheriff's office disregarded any know risk? Let's look a the facts for a moment. First Crow turned himself in for allegedly violating his parole, that had already ended, and was scheduled to see the judge the next morning. In the briefs for this appeal jailers admit to putting Crow in a cell with long term violent offenders when he should have been housed elsewhere. This in itself would constitutes a disregard to Crow's safety but that's not the end of the story. In this cell was a prisoner who had just come off a stay in isolation for breaking the jaw of another inmate just weeks before. This would seem to raise the level of possible harm that could befall not only Crow but all the other inmates that were in that cell. The simple fact that the jail administrators were aware of the dangers and did nothing to alleviate them shows their indifference. That leaves of was this indifference deliberate?

In other lawsuits the courts have acknowledge that fact that a new jail was planned and sided with the County but how does simply planning for a new jail protect the inmates currently incarcerated? The fact is that it doesn't and continuing to house prisoners in what they themselves call unsafe condition constitutes a deliberate act. Take a look at some of the comments made in the press in 1999 about jail overcrowding and the safety of inmates.

Sheriff Marty Montgomery said the stress of being incarcerated in the first place is intensified by the overcrowding.

"Anytime you have 23 people in a 12-man cell ... it just exacerbates an already bad situation," he said.

Kelly and Montgomery both said the increased number of fights also leads to increased medical costs for the jail.

"When you have fights, you often have injuries," Montgomery said. "Anything can happen ... people could get injured or, God forbid, there could be a death."

Prisoner's medical costs, which are paid by the county, are also increased because germs spread easily within large groups of people sharing one area.

The increased number of fights and the increased need for medical attention combine with many other factors to place a large amount of stress on the understaffed jail administrators, according to Montgomery.

"We have to be careful and watch for burnout closely because these individuals are under a great deal of stress ... controlling this many inmates," he said.

And let's not forget Sheriff Montgomery's infamous "...we are out of options. The only alternative we would have would be a reduction of services," statement to the press also in 1999. Could this reduction in services have been at the jail?

That's hard to say for sure but one thing that is a surety is this case is costing us taxpayers money for the Sheriff's and the County's defense and possible damages should Crow win his suit. Another black eye for our spectacular sheriff's department and another blemish on Sheriff Montgomery's illustrious career...

Spin cycle

We read in the Log Cabin that Sheriff Marty Montgomery threatened to pursue legal action against JP Catherin Blankenship over what he called malicious and slanderous comments. Montgomery says his records show the department was never in the red, but rather turned $112,000 back to the county after the end of the year. We find this hard to believe and it’s really kind of funny how the sheriff's office needed $87,000 in October and got offended when the committee asked why some line items were in the red. Then in December they needed $37,000 more to make it through to the end of the year because once again they didn’t spend the money as appropriated and once again got offended. This time they refused to show up to answer questions raised by the committee.

Now Montgomery says they returned $112,000 back to the county at the end of the year, so we have to ask where did the money come from? Was it in some kind of special account that no one knew about? If the money was there then why did they come to the F&A committee with their hat in hand asking for more? Maybe it was revenue made from selling confiscated property. Does any of this make sense to anyone?

Rachel Parker a Log Cabin reporter writes,

[Montgomery] said lowering the appropriation to one quarter is "(the committee's) attempt to micromanage the sheriff's office and only the sheriff's office."

Montgomery appealed to the rest of the court, pointing out the authority is with the full court and not with subcommittees of the court.

"If you want to go to the quarterly, it will not affect the way we do business. It's just another way to micromanage the sheriff's office," he said.

He said the costs associated with running a jail and a sheriff's office are unpredictable.

"Returning $100,000 means we've been pretty frugal," he said.

Montgomery encouraged any of the members of the court to come by the sheriff's office and spend time with his staff to see how the financial process works.

We really think the sheriff misses the point of quarterly appropriations, it is being done TO micromanage the sheriff's office because the committee is concerned about how the financial process works, or in this case doesn't work. The law says it is illegal to spend appropriated tax dollars on items that have not been appropriated but in November we discovered that there were 4 line item categories that were in the red by between 238% and 580%. The correct procedure would have been for the sheriff's office to notify the F&A committee BEFORE the any line item category goes negative so that more money can be appropriated. This is a standard accounting procedure for county government agencies and is what the quorum court is trying to get to.

Sheriff Montgomery goes on to say that JP Blankenship actions and comments were "politically motivated" because she is running for the office of County Judge in the upcoming election. But how does the sheriff explain why the other members 10 members of the quorum court voted for the quarterly appropriation, were they politically motivated?

Actually we think Sheriff Marty Montgomery has a point, the search for answers into the spending issues IS politically motivated. After all isn't it good politics for an elected official to stand up in defense of our county tax dollars? This is something that JPs Kelley and Thessing ought to consider while they try and defend the actions of a friend.

One does have to wonder why Sheriff Marty Montgomery is so worked up over quarterly appropriations and questions about spending within his department. After all there was an audit last year that revealed thousands in misspent money that has led to the F&A committee to seek reimbursement. Why all of a sudden has Sheriff Montgomery come out of hiding and is flex his muscles? One local forum member says, "it seems to me to be an effort to intimidate into silence," which is a valid assessment of the situation. Personally we think this latest spin is a prelude to some upcoming announcement by Sheriff Montgomery, it will be interesting to see what happens as this plays out.

Micro-management and raises for County Employees

As promised the F&A Committee of the Quorum Court recommended an ordinance that would allow the county to micro-manage the budget of the sheriff's office. This ordinance would appropriate money quarterly instead of yearly allowing the committee to keep a closer watch on spending within the sheriff's department. This idea would seem to be a good one but we suspect that the sheriff's office and at least one JP, Marvin Kelley, would have a problem with it. Look for this opposition at the next full quorum court meeting.

The F&A Committee also lived up to their promise and voted to give county employees a 3% raise retroactive to the first of the year. Although we do find that a 3% raise in pay is a slight bit low considering the cost of living increase was higher. People who are on society security got a 4.5% increase this year. But it's better than nothing right. There is one more hurdle this proposed raise will have to jump, it must be voted in and ratified by the full court.

Something that has been over looked however by the county is the millions in delinquent fines that still plagues the county. The county voted to publish a list of the delinquent fine owners in the Log Cabin but we haven't seen anything published lately. The first list you'll remember was littered with incomplete and inaccurate information that was suppose to be corrected in the next publication. But we did not see this published, maybe we missed it. At any rate the county has only seen a limited increase in the collection of these fines while millions are still owed. Maybe if the Quorum Court was to allow a collection agency to collect more of these fines a bigger raise could be given to the employees of this county next year.

Food for thought. . .

It comes down to choices

Coming up this Tuesday At 6:30pm is next F&A Committee Meeting and although it isn't listed on the official agenda we have been told that will be looking at changes to how money is appropriated for the sheriff's office.

At the last meeting of this committee entertained the idea of changing the sheriff's budget to quarterly allocations, pass an ordinance that the sheriff's dept. cannot go in the negative in any single line item, get a report back on who has vehicles and why (there are 51 somewhere), and get a report back on who has cell phones and why. The committee also wants to require the sheriff to get prior approval before spending for meals and lodging and cancel all the credit cards. The committee recognizes that there will be some problems that need to be worked out with these last two ideas but feel all of these steps are needed to correct the spending issues.

These measures are the result of choices the sheriff's office made in the management of the department. Facing a tight budget due to budget cuts in the 2005 budget, because of a surplus at the end of 2004, the department chose to ignore established accounting procedures and run many categories in the red without notifying the Quorum Court.

Once it all came to a head in late November and questions arose by the F&A Committee the sheriff's office was asked to explain their actions. The Committee ultimately had to appropriate additional monies and once again the sheriff's office didn't follow the correct procedure by running more line items in the red. This time the sheriff's office made another choice, they choose to ignore the F&A Committee's request for answers.

Speaking of choices, comments recently were made at this blog concerning raises for deputies and apparently the posters feel the problem is at the Quorum Court level. But the fact is it is another choice made by the sheriff and his management team.

The Sheriff is responsible for setting the budget for his department not the Quorum Court. The court simply approves or sends the budget back fro adjustments if it can't be done. Over the years Sheriff Montgomery chose to use his budget to fund trips to sheriff's conferences and a special FBI course for his political and professional career rather that spend money on raises. Montgomery also used this travel budget to take non-county personnel on these outings. If we were deputies we'd be a little pissed at this choice. It is choices like these that call for a new sheriff and management team.

In November the people will get to decide the route our sheriff's department takes. We recently asked one of the candidates for Sheriff what his view on this problem was. Democratic candidate Karl Byrd responded,

A lot of these problems will be easy to fix by simply putting the needed checks and balances in place and re-structuring administration and who is allowed to spend and under what circumstances. You must have set procedures and proper supervision to assure these practices are being followed. To restore the public's view of the department will take some time, hard work, and a lot of professionalism that will be best displayed by sound law enforcement, understanding of the laws, and dealing with the public in a fair and professional manner.

I do believe that I will be able to obtain raises for the deputies and hopefully more of them to better serve the public. I believe this can be done by establishing an open communication with the JP's and explain the needs of the department and the services required to keep our citizens safe. In this day and time, you just can't ask for money from the court and not provide information as to why you need it.

This is an exciting time in Faulkner County with the rapid growth in population, business, and industry, but we need to understand problems that can come with this rapid growth and that we MUST have a progressive law enforcement agency to be prepared for this.

This is probably going to be one of the most important elections that Faulkner County has ever experienced. Not just in my race, but also in the Judge's race, Representative races, and JP's. I hope that the citizens of this County consider these facts and ask questions as you have done before they cast their votes. . .

We agree wholeheartedly with Candidate Byrd on this matter, this will be a very important election for all the races in the county. . .

How soon we forget

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporter Debra Hale-Shelton's recap of the spending woes at the sheriff's office sparked comments from JP Marvin Kelley. Kelley, a reserve deputy and member of the jail task force, spoke in defense of the sheriff's office even though the sheriff and his staff declined comment.

You may remember Kelley was one of the JPs who voted against the legislative audit that uncovered egregious incidents of theft and fraud saying, "I think it's a sad day in Faulkner County when our elected officials are beating each other up in the newspaper." He added, "I don't know how it should have been handled," he said. "If I were one JP with questions, why can't I just go say 'What's the problem?' One (JP) can go directly to a department head. It just appeared to me like it was politically motivated."

It would seem that he would liked to have kept this misspending under wraps and not let the public know where our money is being spent. But that's not what he promised to do in his 2002 campaign for JP. In his run against (D) Jerry Roberts, JP Kelley said, "What I want to do is just be a responsible and accountable representative for the people of the county. We've passed sales tax initiatives for the jail and roads, and we need to see some action," he added he wants to be sure the county isn't "wasting taxpayer money."

Now Kelley speaks out to defend those accused of misspending and wasting taxpayer's money, how soon do we forget. Debra Hale-Shelton writes,

. . . Tabor took aim at reportedly widespread credit-card abuse and evidence of theft by others in the sheriff's office while concluding that no criminal charges against Montgomery were warranted.

"Items from diapers to liquor were purchased using the cards", Tabor said.

Kelly, who is an unpaid reserve deputy, acknowledged the discovery of "a lot of things that were certainly improper or inaccurate" in the sheriff's office. Still he said, "I really don't think it was intentional wrongdoing. All of the people that work for the sheriff I believe to be honest people."

Kelley must think that "improper" actions, "widespread credit-card abuse", "inaccurate" reporting of expenses, and "evidence of theft" are definitions of honesty.

But what is really disturbing is the sheriff and his staff's actions when questioned about this matter, they refused to answer. They are members of our government who have once again misspent our tax dollars and they do not show up to answer questions by the Finance Committee. Furthermore they offer no explanation to the public other than that they are offended by these questions. Do they seriously think that childishly refusing to answer questions about where the money was spent is going to make them look good?

It looks like they still have things to hide and it appears that they have at least one JP that is willing to defend them for it.

Someone send the sheriff a box of Kleenex

In a story from yesterday's Log Cabin Rachel Parker says members of the administrative staff of the Faulkner County Sheriff's Office took offense at comments made after an emergency meeting of the finance committee last month.

Last November the committee gave the department an additional $86,000 appropriation that was to correct the overspending on monies from several line item categories so the department could make it to the end of the year. At that meeting Chief Deputy Wallace 'took offense' at people questioning their expenditures by people who really didn't understand what they do.

Now the department is offended by comments made by the JPs who are in charge of appropriating county funds and had to once again dish out money for negative line items. It's kind of like a parent giving their child money to help them make a car payment only to later find out the child had spent it on 'other things'. Now if you were that parent wouldn't you want to know why the car payment wasn't made?

For anyone who works at a department that is guilty of thousands of dollars in misspent money, in 2004, and that can't balance its budget, in 2005, to take offense is simply laughable. Someone please send the sheriff's office a box of Kleenex, they need to dry their eyes. They should probably open them too and take a good look around, people aren't buying it.

As JP Blankenship says, "The question was the oversight and controls and accountability. We tried to impress upon all the officials to be very frugal so we would have money for raises. There is no frugality in that department. We want them to live within a budget, not just spend and ask for more."

Speaking of raises, Sgt. Jason Bell, who was involved in that deadly shooting, gave his account of the incident that left one man dead. In his comments he notes that the city of Oppelo just started a police department with a salary that is higher than his and he has been at the department for almost nine years. He adds that a Sergeant at the Vilonia Police Department makes about $9,000 more a year.

Sgt. Bell and Deputy Martin were cleared of any wrong doing in the shooting by the way. Check out his comments about the shooing here, Conflicting reports. We think these officers and the other deputies who work to keep this county safe need to be fairly compensated for their work. But what these deputies need to understand is that it is the administration's fault for their lack of raises.

Too much money has been spent for the sheriff's "Great North American Road Trip" and other useless trips that do nothing more that further the career of the Sheriff. Also too much money has been misspent by this administration for personal items and/or gain. The administration has a duty first to the public and then to its officers, self has no place in this picture at all.

And lastly, we think the sheriff and his administration should know that the public takes offense at a department who spends our tax dollars on trips and meals for friends and family members, we take offense at a department who spends our tax dollars for personal items such as tuition payments and everything from diapers to liquor, and we take offense at a department that can't balance their books.

Year in review

Well it’s been quite a year for Faulkner County Sheriff Marty Montgomery and staff; they should feel very fortunate to still be employed and not facing criminal charges. For much of the year the department has been under investigation for spending infractions that turned out to be far worse than anyone knew, well except for the violators that is.

But much in the same way the sheriff’s office has ignored criminal acts, the judges and prosecutors have allowed the sheriff and his staff to get away with misspending our tax dollars. This is quite a system of justice we have in this country, a person can be convicted of embezzlement as long as they are not holding public office would seem to be the lesson we get from this mess.

We’d like to offer our ‘thanks’ to special prosecutor Stephen Tabor for his ‘outstanding job’ of defending the people of this county. It’s too bad that he’s from Sebastian County, we could have shown him our ‘thanks’ at the polls this coming November.

The Faulkner County Detention Center also received favorable rulings by our justice system in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU for the chronic overcrowded conditions of the jail. A U.S. Magistrate dismissed the case saying he was “not entirely satisfied" with the average numbers of inmates held at the facility, but that the "totality of the circumstances" called for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge H. David Young also noted that the ACLU failed to show that the county was deliberately indifferent to the inmates' serious health and safety needs, he said he found no evidence of deliberate indifference. "Deliberately indifferent" whom was he kidding, stuffing 200 inmates in a facility built to hold 121 inmate (140 inmates by fire code regulations) isn't indifferent to their safety?

Chalk up another one for Sheriff Montgomery and the County; they seem to be living ‘charmed’ lives as justice takes another one on the chin. By our count last year our lady of justice is way behind, she has some serious making up to do if she is to win this fight.

It’s also been quite a year for the County Judge’s Office and the Quorum Court. County Judge John Wayne Carter seen a lawsuit accusing him of violating bidding procedures by allowing a JP at the time’s company to repair a county building be dismissed by a special judge appointed to hear the case. What’s with these special legal eagles these days, do they not see anything as illegal?

Now we come to our Quorum Court and it Finance Committee. It would seem that after a year like this the court should be feeling a slight bit impotent when it comes to it power in controlling the budgets of the county’s agencies. After all they have tried to get to the bottom of the spending problems at the sheriff’s office and demanded that new procedures be established as they agree to give the sheriff an additional $86,000 appropriation only to see that misspent as well.

The Quorum Court and the County Judges office need to come to the realization that the only way to prevent the misspending at the sheriff’s office is to come down hard on the violators and get rid of those credit cards that the sheriff and his staff freely hand out to anyone who needs to by something. They also need to spoon feed money to the sheriff and make the department submit a request to the county for things prior to their purchase.

Yep it was quite a year, here’s to hoping for a better one this year. . .

When you forgive a misuse of public funds what do you get

More misspending. In what has got to be a case of sheer stupidity the Faulkner County Sheriff's office misspend much of the $86,000 in additional appropriations they received. Last month the F&A committee of the Quorum Court approved an $86,000 appropriation to get the department through the rest of the year. The money was intended for fuel and utilities, but a report of the department's budget revealed a balance of $20,540 in the fuel, oil and lube line item and $17,760 in utilities while other line items were in the negative, again.

Rachel Parker of the Log Cabin writes,

Justice of the Peace Catherin Blankenship said, "We gave them money they asked for to get by on fuel and utilities, and they spent it on other things."

JP Johnnie Wells said, "If this was my business somebody would have been fired."

Hutchens said the sheriff's office plans to set up a computer program to help track how much money is in each line item.

The committee discussed the legal ramifications of making the responsible employee reimburse the county if the department overspends. Hutchens said he will talk to the Association of Arkansas Counties to determine if any other counties have tried this method and what possible legal problems could arise. All purchase orders in the sheriff's office are signed by one or more members of the administrative staff, which includes Chief Deputy Steve Wallace, Lt. Jack Pike, Major Perry Wyse and Jail Administrator Bobby Brown.

The committee also discussed how to put the department's budget under closer scrutiny. They agreed the budget should be appropriated one quarter at a time rather than the full year's appropriation at once. Because there was no time to change the already-prepared budget, the full court passed the 2006 budget later Tuesday with the entire sheriff's office budget intact. Hutchens said the committee will later recommend lowering the appropriation to one quarter.

Hutchens will also keep an eye on the department's spending and notify the committee if any line item goes into the negative or if a large percentage is spent too early in the year, he said.

We could not agree more with JP Wells, someone, the now five horsemen, should be fired. Earlier this month we told you what the law says about misappropriation of funds, it is illegal and the penalty for it is, among other things, loss of employment. These people Pike, Wallace, Wyse, Brown, and Montgomery should be fired for their blatant disregard of the spending procedures and the law.

The people of this county deserve a full discloser for the sheriff's office spenting but all we get is the same old tired excuses and more empty promises from both the County Judge's office and the Sheriff's staff. "We handle too many PO's and there is too many people issuing them to keep up with but we are going to get on top of this by watching it better and use the computers to help us” is the same sort of crap we were fed last month.

Isn't it time for the Quorum Court, Prosecutor's office, and/or the State to end this madness? Quit giving them the benefit of the doubt and enforce the laws. . .

Damascus Keith Robinson has NOT been accused of any wrongdoing

Early reports said that Damascus' police chief, Keith Robinson, had been placed on administrative leave following the discovery of missing money at Damascus city hall. The news reports made it look as if Chief Robinson was somehow involved but as it turns out he was a victim of attack the whistle blower.

In true good ol boy fashion Robinson was suspended after he turned information over to the State’s Legislative Audit Division while the city’s clerk whom he accused remained employed.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporter Debra Hale-Shelton writes,

. . . Damascus Police Chief Keith Robinson, who reported the suspected wrongdoing, said it was he, not the city employee he accused, whom the City Council placed on administrative leave with pay.

“They [aldermen] told me they needed my badge and my keys to City Hall,” Robinson said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “I felt somewhat betrayed because they had pretty much canned me and allowed [the employee ] to return to work.”

Mayor L.B. Pavatt, contacted Wednesday, declined to say why the chief was put on leave but said, “Nobody’s trying to do him in or anything like that.”

Pavatt also said he did not think Robinson was put on leave because he reported his findings to the state.

“Nothing has been decided on this,” the mayor said. “We don’t know anything. I couldn’t tell you whether there’s a dollar missing or not because I don’t know.”

Robinson said the problems were in the office of a specific city employee. Reached by telephone at City Hall, the employee named by Robinson declined to comment.

Robinson has since been offered a full-time position at the Department and no word has been given about the status of the accused clerk’s employment, meanwhile the investigation continues. . .

Conflicting reports

The Conway Police Department and the Arkansas State Police will handle the investigation into the shooting this past Friday while the deputies involved remain on administrative leave. In a Log Cabin follow-up Rachel Parker reveals more details into the shooting adding that the deputies had previously responded to the domestic disturbance that started this altercation. Parker writes,

"There's no questionable actions here on anybody's part," Pike said.

The deputies responded to a domestic disturbance at a Havens Lane home about 1:24 a.m. Friday. Less than an hour later they received word the suspect was on his way back with a gun.

Bell and Martin followed the suspect, Michael Tindoll, into the residence and ordered him to drop his weapon. When he did not comply, they fired on him with less-lethal ammunition. He fired on the deputies and hit both of them with shotgun pellets. Bell returned fire, hitting Tindoll in the side.

Tindoll started down a hallway towards a bedroom, when he was shot in the chest by a resident of the house.

Lt. Jack Pike's assertion that 'there is no questionable actions here' is a bit premature considering the investigation is still underway. We cannot help but wonder in this situation, a suspect refusing to drop his gun with potential hostages in a room just down the hall, why the deputies chose to use 'less-lethal ammunition'. It just doesn’t make sense and it put people’s lives in danger.

Another oddity about this story is KARK News 4’s report where a witness, Jon Noble, gives a conflicting account of this incident,

Neighbors said they heard it all.

"Then the cops voices got a little louder. Put the gun down! Don't do it Chris! Then I heard a boom. Then I heard their guns, pop, pop. Then I heard him again and I called 911 and they didn't even know there was gun fire going on yet," explained Jon Noble, neighbor.

If this account were accurate it would seem that Tindoll fired first which actually would make more sense but is in direct contradiction to what has been reported. Debra Hale-Shelton of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette confirms this in her story and adds,

Bell and Martin responded to a disturbance call at the house. By the
time they got there, Tindoll, who reportedly had broken into the home and
had a physical altercation with Sides, had gone to another residence to get
his 12-gauge shotgun. A person at that house called Sides’ girlfriend and
warned her that Tindoll was on his way back; she in turn notified the sheriff’s
office. Bell and Martin noticed Tindoll driving toward the house and followed
him.

”He jumped out and ran in the house, and they [the deputies] ran after
him,” Pike said.

At that point, Pike said, Tindoll fired his shotgun once, striking both
officers in the side. Bell returned fire with his service revolver, striking
Tindoll in the side, Pike said.

”The suspect turned and started back down the hall toward the girlfriend’s
room,” but Sides shot Tindoll in the chest. Tindoll was pronounced dead at
the scene.

Sides was not arrested, Pike said, because “he didn’t do anything wrong.”
”Mr. Sides did exactly what he should have done. ... He, along with our
officers, potentially saved the lives of other people in that house.”

We believe there are quite a few unanswered questions that need to be resolved before we commend these officers like why didn’t they stop Tindoll before he arrive back at his girlfriend’s house? After all at this point he was a possibly armed man who was reported to have broke into a residence about 30 mins before. Another questionable act would be the use of “the less-lethal” ammunition when people’s lives hang in the balance.

Things simply don’t make sense in this story but in typical ‘move along, nothing to see here’ form Lt. Pike says there were no questionable acts done by anyone. Yep, that’s who we need as sheriff, someone who will continue on in the fine traditions of our current one. One who advocates brandishing weapons and taking care of problems ourselves.

In the Line of Duty

Christmas is the time of the year when friends and families get together to celebrate the birth of baby Jesus, to spread joy and good cheer, and to exchange gifts to one another. This year two Faulkner County deputies should be extra thankful for the gifts that they receive.

This past Friday Sgt. Jason Bell and Deputy Wesley Martin responded to a call about a man with a gun at a residence south of Conway. At 1:55 a.m. the officers spotted Michael Tindoll, 27, of Conway, and followed him into the home of Melissa Weber, his ex-girlfriend, and John Sides Jr.

Log Cabin reporter Rachel Parker gives us the details according to Lt. Jack Pike, spokesman for the Faulkner County Sheriff's Office.

About 1:55 a.m., the officers spotted Tindoll and followed him to the home.
They followed him into the home and commanded him several times to put down his weapon, but he did not comply, Pike said.

The deputies fired two less-lethal rounds that hit Tindoll in the torso, but he still did not drop the shotgun, Pike said. Instead, he allegedly fired one shotgun blast, hitting both deputies with pellets. Bell returned fire, hitting Tindoll in the side.

Tindoll turned and started down the hall toward Weber's bedroom. Sides, who was in the bedroom, fired one shot from his own gun, hitting Tindoll in the chest, Pike said.

Three small children, ages two to four years old, were in the home during the domestic disturbance. One slept the whole time, Pike said.

It cannot be easy for an officer to have to shoot a suspect, especially one who was obviously distraught but in this case it appears that is was necessary. The two deputies involved do deserve our respect for putting their lives on the line and answering the call to duty.

However the deputies failed to protect the victims and owe a great deal of thanks to Mr Sides for doing what they were there to do. If he hadn't shot Tindoll we could have been reading the deaths of three children and two adults.

Pike's statement about the use of "less than lethal rounds" sort of implies it was done intentionally. If that was the case then it was a serious mistake. In real life it doesn't make sense to shoot a man with a gun in the arm or anywhere else that will give him an opportunity to return fire. Pike probably meant they missed when they failed to drop Tindoll with their first shots.

Back in the summer I had a talk with candidate for sheriff Karl Byrd who stressed the need for more training for the patrol officers because they are our front line of defense as well as the first link in the chain of prosecuting crimes. We could not agree more with candidate Byrd and this incident would seems to confirm his statement. Pike on the other hand acts as if we should be holding a parade for the 2 deputies.

…"We applaud their bravery, and their quick action no doubt resulted in saving the residents of the home," he said.

The officers will be off duty pending an investigation into the shooting. Pike said the sheriff's office has no reason to believe there was a violation of policy or misconduct on behalf of the officers…

For our sake we hope that these officers would learn from this and if something like this should happen again they would handle it differently. We wish these deputies a speedy recovery. . .