The Arkansas Supreme Court returned from its summer break Thursday, hearing oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by a former state legislator who has sought to end the practice of lawmakers directing state funds toward local pet projects.
The lawsuit filed by former Rep. Mike Wilson of Jacksonville is similar to a case he previously won. He faces a different cast of justices from the one that sided with him in 2006 in his suit to stop lawmakers from approving spending directly to local projects.
Since then, Wilson argues in his latest lawsuit, lawmakers have gotten around the Supreme Court's ruling by instead directing excess state money -- known as General Improvement Funds -- to private regional entities, and the entities use it to fund local projects that lawmakers recommend.
During more than an hour and a half of arguments, the justices asked about whether the expenditures amount to an unconstitutional local act and whether lawmakers direct where the money actually goes.
Wilson argued that the lawmakers do direct it -- citing as an example numerous emails and exchanges between legislators and members of the Central Arkansas Planning and Development District.
State attorneys, who defended the practice involved in the suit, told justices that the money is evenly divided across legislative districts and is clearly spent as grants to the regional authorities, who ultimately decide where it goes.
The General Improvement Funds at the center of Wilson's lawsuit were appropriated in 2015, and Wilson seeks to have the $2.9 million that was allocated to the Lonoke-based Central Arkansas Planning and Development District put back in state coffers.
Last November, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza sided with the state and dismissed Wilson's lawsuit. Wilson then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Legislature, during its session this spring, did not appropriate General Improvement Funds for regional grants, citing a lack of so-called rainy-day funds, which is unspent money.
The practice of individual lawmakers directing the expenditure of funds has drawn scrutiny for years. Most recently, two entities -- Ecclesia College in Springdale and Decision Point Inc. in Bentonville, which received hundred of thousands of dollars in grants -- became the focus of a federal investigation into an alleged kickback scheme.
In connection with the case, former Rep. Micah Neal, R-Springdale, pleaded guilty to one count of honest-services fraud, a public-corruption charge, on Jan. 4. Former Sen. Jon Woods, R-Springdale, pleaded innocent to charges of fraud and money laundering.
An investigation by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette found that 24 other current and former lawmakers helped direct funds to the entities at the center of the federal investigation.
No other lawmakers have been charged with a crime.
In a sign that more indictments may be expected, the Senate Republican Caucus voted Wednesday to release a statement calling on any members who are implicated in crimes related to abuse of public trust to give up their committee or leadership assignments.
Senate Majority Leader Jim Hendren, R-Gravette, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette "certainly it's a possibility" that more members will be charged or indicted.
On Thursday, the high court -- continuing its tradition of starting its fall session in the state Capitol's Old Supreme Court Chamber -- did not touch on the ongoing federal investigation.
Each of the seven justices asked questions that caused several attorneys in the case to argue well past their allotted times.
Justice Josephine Hart pressed attorneys for the state and development district to explain how the public could reasonably know how money for the grants was being spent.
"You have some expenditures in there that I wouldn't have thought in my wildest dreams were appropriate, or constitutional," Hart said.
Responding to Hart's line of questioning, development district lawyer Marvin Samuel Jones said "they know generically" that the money is being spent in the public's interest.
Justice Shawn Womack, a former state senator, had more questions for Wilson, who is a lawyer, and his attorney, Johnson Ogles. Womack said the appropriations came with a "strong deference of constitutionality."
Wilson's argument that the money was spent unscrupulously -- such as buying Christmas turkeys and hams for the poor -- raised more questions from Womack, who asked Wilson if he was as troubled when state agencies spend their budgets with charities.
"Your argument is you don't like the Legislature making that decision," Womack said.
The justices did not issue a ruling Thursday. They will confer and hand down written opinions at a later date.
A Section on 09/08/2017