Arkansas’ highest court has rejected the attorney general’s request that it speed the appeal of his unsuccessful lawsuit against the state prison board.
The Arkansas Supreme Court in a Thursday order denied AG Tim Griffin’s motion for expedited consideration of his Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Board of Corrections, which was dismissed by a lower court in January.
The court did not take up Griffin’s motion that it disqualify the private law firm the prison board hired as special counsel to represent it in litigation against Griffin and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
On Thursday afternoon, Griffin said: “I look forward to defending our case before the Arkansas Supreme Court.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The case is one of many facets in the ongoing dispute between the Board of Correction and Sanders, Griffin and other state officials, and a group of lawmakers Thursday afternoon reiterated calls for board member Alonza Jiles to resign over allegations in a civil lawsuit that he covered up child sexual abuse at a youth camp.
Griffin’s case
Griffin sued the Board of Corrections over alleged FOIA violations shortly after it filed a lawsuit of its own against Sanders and former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri over control of the state prison system.
The FOIA suit accused the Board of Corrections of violating the state’s open meetings law when it entered executive session during a pair of December meetings. The suit also challenged the board’s legal authority to retain attorney Abtin Mehdizadegan and Hall Booth Smith law firm.
Griffin also said the board failed to properly respond to a public records request from his office earlier in December, and he has continued to take issue with the board’s use of private sessions.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox gave Griffin and his staff 30 days to work with the Board of Corrections on an agreement with an outside attorney.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
Fox tossed the suit last month, ruling Griffin’s office “failed to make material or good faith efforts to initiate” the statutory procedure that allows special counsel to represent state officials and entities.
While a majority of the Supreme Court declined to expedite the appeal or take up the motion to disqualify the outside law firm, Associate Justice Shawn Womack would have granted the motion to expedite and taken the motion to disqualify counsel. Associate Justice Barbara Webb agreed that expedited consideration should be denied, but she would’ve taken the motion to disqualify.
Thursday’s ruling doesn’t affect a second appeal in the Board of Corrections snafu.
In that separate case, Griffin is appealing a lower court’s ruling that the prison board has constitutional authority over the state correctional system and the secretary of corrections.
Jiles controversy
Also Thursday, a group of Republican legislators held a press conference to repeat calls that Jiles resign from the board.
Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester said multiple federal lawsuits and allegations against Jiles have created too great of a distraction for him to continue on the board.
“We’re asking him, due to the loss in public trust, to do the right thing and step down,” Hester said.
Several lawmakers expressed frustration that Jiles has not responded to their repeated calls and letters.
Jiles last week denied the allegations in the suits and said he didn’t plan to step down, categorizing calls for his ouster from the governor, attorney general and legislators as political shots at the board.
Board Chairman Benny Magness on Thursday said Jiles and all Americans are entitled to their day in court.
“Mr. Jiles has not had his day in court. When he does, if he is determined to be at fault, there should be consequences,” Magness said. “If he is found not to be at fault, he should be able to move past it. Pastor Jiles has asserted that the allegations against him are false. Unless proven otherwise, he should not be punished as some are demanding.”
The Arkansas Constitution contains a provision that allows the governor to initiate a process to remove a member of an independent state board, but that process would require support from a majority of the Board of Corrections.
