News
	Opinion
	Project '99
	Charts / Data
	Links

Send us your comments

Lisa Rooke, Southwest Times Record

A state Attorney General’s Office official said Friday that, as the facts were presented, Mountainburg School Board members did nothing illegal when they recently met with an attorney without public notification.

School Board President Russell Blaylock was not wrong if he called school board members to tell them that an attorney would be available for them to speak with before the public meeting on Feb. 28, said Attorney General’s Office ombudsman Robert Fisher.

“If they met individually, that’s all right,” he said. “If two or more met, that’s improper.”

Fisher added that it would not be considered an executive session or a special session just because the president called the members together. As long as no business was discussed among the members, there was no violation, he said. This would not violate the Freedom of Information Act because a meeting was not assembled without press or public notification.

An attorney would not be breaking the law by meeting with the school board members and discussing situations similar to that which may be discussed in a later meeting, he said.

“She can speak to them about anything on a one-on-one basis … as long as she does it openly,” he said about Little Rock attorney Elizabeth Boyter Turner’s meeting with the members recently. “She can’t go into an executive session.”

The legality of the meeting is being questioned in an FOI violation complaint filed with the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department by Mountainburg resident Natalie Davis against Mountainburg Public Schools.

The complaint states that Davis has been in contact with Fisher and that she was advised to file the report. Fisher said he gave her advice about what can be done, but didn’t tell her that she should file the report. Davis said Friday that she agreed that she was advised, but that Fisher did not tell her that she should file it.

“I told her what her rights are if she is denied access to public records or public meetings,” he said. “She could file with the circuit court and have a hearing...or if she feels it is just a deliberate denial, then she needs to go to the prosecuting attorney. I didn’t advise her about this, I don’t know all the circumstances.”

Davis recently circulated a petition that drew almost 150 signatures asking that primary school principal Jan Bridges’ contract not be renewed during the Feb. 28 meeting. Davis and some other parents said they consider it a conflict of interest for Superintendent Dr. Jim Bridges to directly supervise Principal Bridges, his wife.

Fisher said Friday that there is nothing illegal about this practice, though it could be considered unethical. The Attorney General’s Office does not give opinions based on ethics, he said.

“Arkansas has strange nepotism laws,” he said. “On the school district level, they can (allow a spouse to supervise the other spouse). There’s nothing illegal about him doing that. It may border on the ethical, but it’s not illegal.” .

Davis questioned why her petition was ignored. Fisher said it would be up to the district to decide if the petition would be considered a written complaint.

“Petitions don’t have the force of law,” he said, adding that school boards can take the petition under advisement, but can ignore it as well.

Davis’ criminal complaint is being investigated by Crawford County Sheriff’s Department investigator Brett Hartley. He said he will continue to follow leads and do interviews until the time it is reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney Mike Medlock.

Hartley said the Crawford County prosecutor’s office will not be involved in the open case until his investigation is complete. He could provide no time frame of when the case would be turned over to the prosecutor due to a heavy caseload.

Davis said in the complaint that she will file a civil action with the circuit court clerk. She said Friday that she is currently seeking legal representation.