Notice flashed of an email from state Democratic Party Chairman Michael John Gray. The email, it was said, would contain a statement that Gray was releasing about the resignation of Jefferson County Judge Hank Wilkins, a Democrat.
I thought: Why?
Then I clicked on the email and read the statement.
More intensely, I thought: Why?
Wilkins, of Pine Bluff, is formerly a state legislator. Prosecutor-released information in a federal courtroom in Missouri had revealed that indicted lobbyist Rusty Cranford, operating in both Arkansas and Missouri, had--by the admission of the unindicted and previously un-implicated Wilkins--provided Wilkins, when he was a legislator, with $100,000 in what were called bribes. The payments were made through a church Wilkins pastored.
As a legislator authorized to direct state General Improvement Funds from the state surplus--an authority extended equally to all legislators at the time--Wilkins had steered $50,000 to a behavioral health center in Monticello with which Cranford was associated.
Was there some compelling moral reason or political consideration that required Gray, in presumed behalf of the state Democratic Party, to provide two cents on one man's alleged corruption through the lamentably absurd practice of legislators divvying up state surplus funds equally among themselves to distribute by their arbitrary authority in a process brazenly inviting corruption?
There wasn't. But, all the stranger, Gray's statement didn't denounce Wilkins or deplore the GIF.
Instead it essentially asked ... isn't it sad what's happened because of a few bad actors--Republicans, mainly, by the way--to this program by which rural legislators could take money home to their small, poor districts that stood no chance of getting nice things otherwise?
Here's the statement Gray put out: "What we have seen come out about Hank Wilkins is unfortunate and frustrating. It gets to the heart of the issue of corruption in the political scene. For instance, take the General Improvement Fund, which was intended for lawmakers--especially those in rural communities who know their areas best--to provide necessary funds to their schools, fire departments and vital community services. From the Ecclesia scandal to Sen. [Jake] Files' kickback scheme, we've seen these funds misused, which I think does a real disservice to those actually out there trying to better their communities."
Gray is a farmer and legislator who represents a small rural House district in eastern Arkansas. One of his primary goals as state chairman is to try to reconnect state Democrats with his rural neighbors. He has told me before that he thinks the GIF is a perfectly acceptable vehicle for that.
I got him on the phone and asked him what the heck. I contended that his statement, unnecessary and ill-advised though I deemed it to be, should have begun with a personal denunciation of Wilkins' admitted behavior--not a lamentation--and followed immediately with a call for either elimination or, as I have suggested, reform of the GIF process.
He said "why" was a fair question and that the statement could have been "cleaned up."
But he said the GIF is not the problem. He said the abusers are the problem. I'd heard something like that about guns and shooters.
I've acknowledged in this space that small rural communities need help from the state for worthy local projects such as volunteer fire departments or community centers. I've contended we should set up a system by which legislators would appropriate general sums for such purposes to state agencies that would then set up strict, objective and transparent application processes for awarding grants perhaps that would require small matches from the local communities.
Gray told me he didn't like that so much. He said he understood and accepted that we need reform; the courts have ruled to that effect. But he said losing local legislator input in a process run entirely by the governor was not the answer.
He said equalizing the distribution of available money geographically--in the way it was equalized by giving legislators authority over equal shares--remained a worthy idea.
He said a better way to go might be setting up special decision-making panels for different kinds of grants that would include legislative and public members and award grants publicly based at least in part on arguments advanced in open hearings by the affected local legislators.
We were getting away from the principle and into the details.
Could Gray agree that his statement should have deplored Wilkins' action and called at least for transparency and accountability in a reformed GIF rather than focusing on a defense of it?
Sure, yes, he said.
It is true that these small communities need state-government help for fire protection or facilities that cities and larger towns can more easily provide for themselves.
But it's also true that making it easy for legislators to steal is something Democrats ought to find simple enough to oppose unambiguously.
------------v------------
John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.
Editorial on 03/22/2018