Attorney: GOP suit flakier still

— Accusations in a Republican-backed lawsuit that Gov. Mike Beebe has violated the state constitution by approving spending bills that paid for cars used by Arkansas’ executive officers propel the case “into the realm of frivolity,” the governor’s lawyer claims in recent court filings.

Timothy Gauger, Beebe’s chief legal counsel, offers a criticism of the new accusations against the governor in making further arguments that the 2-month-old lawsuit challenging the legality of personal use of state vehicles by the officers and House Speaker Robbie Wills be dismissed.

“With respect to the governor, what began as a suit that could only charitably be described as utterly lacking in merit has now been amended so as to propel it into the realm of frivolity,” Gauger wrote, describing the allegations as “nonsensical rhetoric” based on “legally deficient claims” against Beebe.

Attorney Doyle Webb, the state Republican Party chairman, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Johnny Rhoda of Clinton, a GOP district chairman, didn’t return a cell-phone message left late Tuesday evening. The lawsuit targets Beebe, Lt. Gov.Bill Halter, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, Secretary of State Charlie Daniels, Treasurer Martha Shoffner, Auditor Jim Wood, Land Commissioner Mark Wilcox and House Speaker Robbie Wills - all of them Democrats.

Webb filed notice last month of his intention to question the officials under oath, but they’ve responded with a petition to presiding Circuit Judge Tim Fox to bar those depositions until the judge can decide on their request to throw the case out of court. Gauger’s filing, the expanded accusations against Beebe and a claim by Wilcox that many of the written questions Webb wants answered in the case exceed the scope of the litigation are among the latest volleys fired in the litigation.

Interactive

http://www.arkansas…">Search our databases on state-owned cars

Rhoda’s lawsuit is the second that followed a series of articles in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette detailing how some constitutional officers didn’t pay income taxes on the fringe benefit of personal use of state vehicles. The newspaper has discovered that of the more than 8,000 vehicles in state government, about 2,000 are used for employee commutes.

While no hearing has been set for the Rhoda lawsuit, the first case, a challenge to policies that allow state workers to use publicly owned vehicles for personal trips, has a Dec. 13 hearing for another judge to consider whether there are grounds for that case to go forward.

The plaintiffs in that suit - P.A. Gould of North Little Rock, T.L. Campbell of Fort Smith and N.L. Cobb of Pottsville - want to ensure that every current or former state employee who has used a state car for personal travel within the past five years has reimbursed the state at the legally required rate of 15 cents per mile. The three claim that failure to reimburse the state for personal use of state-owned vehicles is an illegal use of taxpayer funds.

Rhoda’s lawsuit claims the state’s top elected officials’ personal use of state-owned vehicles violates restrictions the Arkansas Constitution places on their compensation in Amendment 70. The lawsuit wants the practice of elected officials using state cars for personal transportation halted and the defendants forced to reimburse the state for past use.

Beebe’s lawyers have called for the case against him to be thrown out, contending his vehicle use is not an issue, since his transportation is provided by the Arkansas State Police as a function of his daily police protection. In response to that argument, Rhoda and Webb expanded the claims against him to target his role as the state’s chief executive officer.

Beebe should be held responsible for car misuse, according to the filings, because he signed into law the appropriations bills that paid for the vehicles “notwithstanding his singular ability to have prevented those expenditures for the last three legislative sessions, and his concurrent failure to do so for the last three legislative sessions.” Beebe could have used his veto power to stop other elected officials from abusing their vehicle privileges, according to the suit, pointing out that “as the head of state government, no other member of the executive department has the singular ability to veto items of appropriations.”

“Defendant Beebe could have stopped this spending on his own - without the necessity of lawsuits or action by any other defendant - yet repeatedly failed to do so,” the amended lawsuit states. “The fact that the governor has failed to follow Amendment 70 as to other constitutional officers or to make inquiry of their compliance ... is his responsibility and his alone.”

Gauger claims that argument is without merit absent any proof that any appropriation act signed by Beebe is illegal. Asking a judge to rule on an issue of the governor’s role in approving or vetoing legislation is not only barred by legislative immunity, Gauger argues, but also prohibited by the separation of powers as outlined in the state constitution. Rhoda is attempting to induce the court to exceed its authority, Gauger claims.

“Rhoda’s attempt to salvage his claims against the governor by invoking the governor’s role in the approval or veto of legislation ... is an invitation for the court to supervise the governor’s and General Assembly’s role in the passage of legislation ... that is found nowhere in the Constitution,” the filing states. “The separation of powers doctrine prevents this court from accepting such an invitation. Courts can neither compel the governor to approve, veto or lineitem veto a bill passed by the General Assembly, nor can the courts prohibit the governor from doing so.”

Front Section, Pages 1 on 11/24/2010

Upcoming Events