Breaking: Arkansas hires Sam Pittman as football head coach
Today's Paper Search Latest Core values App Traffic In the news #Gazette200 Listen iPad FAQ Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles Archive
story.lead_photo.caption Susan Weaver

In a 3-1 ruling, the state Ethics Commission on Friday decided that Circuit Judge Susan Weaver violated the law by failing to note that her campaign paid for an ad in a magazine in May 2018.

But the commission declined to sanction Weaver based on good cause. Weaver and a co-owner of the magazine testified that the campaign asked in an email for the magazine to correct the ad before publication to specify who paid for it, but the magazine didn't do so.

Weaver is a former district judge for Faulkner and Van Buren counties who narrowly defeated Andrea Woods, corporate counsel and executive president of Nabholz Construction, for the Division 1 position in the 20th Judicial Circuit in May 2018.

Woods filed a complaint against Weaver after the election, triggering the investigation, commission Director Graham Sloan said after the meeting.

Commissioners Sybil Jordan Hampton of Little Rock, Lori Klein of Searcy and Ashley Driver Younger of Little Rock voted to approve a motion to find that Weaver violated state law, but not to sanction her for it. Chairman Tony Juneau of Rogers dissented.

Under state law, the commission may sanction ethics law violators with a letter of caution, reprimand or warning and/or fines ranging from $50 to $2,000 per violation.

The commission also voted 4-0 to deny Weaver's motion to declare the laws under which the commission operates to be unconstitutional.

Weaver's attorney, Jeff Rosenzweig, told the commission, "We may wish to appeal on the question of constitutionality and whether a violation was found at all."

Under Arkansas Code Annotated 7-6-228, campaign signs, literature and other printed materials must clearly contain the words "Paid for by" followed by the name of the candidate, committee or person who paid for the material.

Commission attorney Raymond Boyles said it was clear that Weaver wanted language in her ad in the Faulkner Lifestyle magazine to specify that her campaign paid for it, but that language wasn't in the publication and "that has created a violation."

Rosenzweig said, "It is our position that Judge Weaver did everything she could to comply with [the law].

"There is no dispute that Judge Weaver requested that the tag line be put in," Rosenzweig said. He said the commission has on record an affidavit by one of the magazine owners saying it was their fault and not Weaver's.

"It is our position that the commission should exonerate Judge Weaver of any liability or responsibility or a fine, that [there is] good cause not to sanction her in any way," he said.

Lori Quinn, co-owner of the Faulkner Lifestyle magazine, testified that she agreed with the affidavit of Brandy Strain-Dayer, the other co-owner.

"This particular ad was sent to proof and we missed an email [in which] they replied it was not correct and we just missed it," Quinn said.

"We have a very short window between the time we proof them and go to press," she said. "This was our second or third issue of that magazine so we were still learning that process and what works best. ... We will not forget to put that on a public ad ever again, I promise."

Woods told the commission that it's very difficult to file an ethics complaint in a judicial race, no matter when one files it.

"If you do it during the race, it looks like you are trying to exert some strategy during the campaign to harm your opponent. If you do it afterwards, it is sour grapes or trying to hurt someone's reputation," she said.

"I do want to point out that it doesn't appear any corrections were requested to be published," Woods said. "I would have requested a correction."

The "paid for by" language required on campaign ads is to notify the public of who is paying for ads, and "who is paying for what is extremely relevant today, extremely relevant if you look at what is going on at the Capitol and what is happening with legislators and judges going to prison," she said.

In March 2016, Weaver received a public letter of caution from the commission in a settlement of a complaint in which she agreed that she violated state law by failing to disclose on her Statement of Financial Interest for 2014 her income as district court judge.

Rosenzweig said he filed a motion asking the commission to declare the state laws under which it operates unconstitutional "even though we know that this commission has no power to declare anything unconstitutional.

"But the Arkansas Supreme Court ... has decided that a challenge to the constitutionality must be brought in the administrative process, so we have done so," he said.

"It is our position that it violates due process for the same entity that makes the charge or makes a finding of probable cause to then decide the merits of the case," Rosenzweig said. "Similar procedures had been in effect both on the Committee on Professional Conduct and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. In both instances, those entities, which are under the more direct control of the state Supreme Court, have changed their policies to essentially have a charging panel and a hearing panel, so you don't have the mixing of the roles to which I refer."

Andrea Woods

Metro on 01/19/2019

Print Headline: Judge broke the law, state ethics panel says, but campaign violation draws no sanctions


Sponsor Content

Archived Comments

  • Skeptic1
    January 19, 2019 at 7:53 a.m.

    "Weaver is a former district judge for Faulkner and Van Buren counties..." Enough said.

  • Razrbak
    January 19, 2019 at 8:41 a.m.

    And ole Jeff is a shyster.

  • UoABarefootPhdFICYMCA
    January 19, 2019 at 12:47 p.m.

    Because shes a female.
    Russian traitor!

  • NoUserName
    January 19, 2019 at 1:31 p.m.

    Actually, I fail to see why this is a bad ruling. Perhaps the 1st two posters can chime in and expand a little more.

  • 0boxerssuddenlinknet
    January 19, 2019 at 2:06 p.m.

    so if this is the type of worthless complaint that the Ethics committee handles no wonder they didn't get the extra funding they requested.

  • UoABarefootPhdFICYMCA
    January 19, 2019 at 2:26 p.m.

    NUN why is it a bad judgement?
    Imagine if you will you are a commoner and you are issued a citation for a offense.
    Does it matter that it was a accident? Or that it was unintentional? Does it matter that the commoner didnt know?
    The answer is NO
    A resounding no.
    It does not matter because by the time that ticket is judged SOMEONE needs to be PAID.
    So lets think about that if we can grasp the fullness of it...

  • Skeptic1
    January 19, 2019 at 2:30 p.m.

    "Perhaps the 1st two posters can chime in and expand a little more." Anyone familiar with Faulkner country knows how corrupt it is. Maggio was known to be a crooked judge yet those around him turned a blind eye. Woods made it to the Supreme Court and appears to be under investigation and was Michael Maggio's BFF (he is now in federal prison). Maggio was a hair away from joining Woods on the appellate court. The former city attorney in Conway is now on the appellate court, and not because he was an experienced judge. Not saying he is corrupt, but the number of unqualified attorneys making it to the appellate and supreme court from that county is certainly curious.

  • NoUserName
    January 19, 2019 at 2:31 p.m.

    I think somebody should read the article first. As for tickets, I've had them dismissed and/or reduced over the years. So your analogy falls flat.

  • NoUserName
    January 19, 2019 at 2:33 p.m.

    Skeptic, that may be true, but the judge tried to correct an oversight ahead of time and the magazine failed to correct it. The judge was found guilty of an ethics violation but the commission chose not to fine her. That sounds reasonable to me regardless of any shenanigans present in Faulkner county. Unless you're saying the magazine failed to correct intentionally.

  • UoABarefootPhdFICYMCA
    January 19, 2019 at 2:37 p.m.

    Look at this other headline here.
    {Arkansas Ethics Commission pushed to 'breaking point,' director says
    by Michael R. Wickline 10 hrs. ago}
    Whats that about?
    Bypassing the higher tier people get by with a new one every other or day because there was a miscommunication? it was only a accident? And then the taxpayer takes the tax for the erroneous investigations too?
    Somebody has to pay.
    Ethics mean ethics. wtf people. its not about being mean or not doing the right thing under the circumstances! its about following the law to the letter!