Arkansas Legislative Council questions Board of Corrections over contract with independent lawyer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – After questions from the state legislature over new language, the Arkansas Board of Corrections is investigating its contract with its own lawyer hired for lawsuits against the state.
On Tuesday, the board went before lawmakers to ask for them to sign off on a contract with the special counsel that the board retained in order to sue the state over a new law that shifted authority of the secretary of corrections and two undersecretaries away from the board to the governor’s office.
Earlier this year, a judge granted them the authority to hire outside counsel. The attorney general is currently appealing that ruling.
Right now, the board owes its attorney more than $130,000. To pay out that amount, though, takes the state’s approval, and during the meeting, lawmakers discovered what the described as a “significant error” from the board’s presentation.
Sen. Ben Gilmore (R-Crossett) said the error was language added to the contract that would’ve held the state liable.
“We can’t put the state in that kind of position and nor should the board of corrections,” Gilmore said. “Why they were asking us to do that certainly is problematic.”
Court backs Arkansas Board of Corrections, maintains board’s powers over secretary firing
The board agreed to internally investigate this and tabled the ratification they originally needed from the legislature.
The board’s attorney, Abtin Mehdizadegan, sent the following information in an email:
“I was the only person to sign that document at that time. From there, I asked that the marked-up copy be transmitted to Chad Brown. I expected—as is normal in all contract negotiations—that if Mr. Brown had a concern with any revisions, that he would identify them and we could work on a compromise. I thought the compromise that I submitted—adding “if applicable” after the sovereign immunity and Claims Commission clauses—was eminently reasonable. Again, no court has ever addressed whether 711 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity; and because I suspect that this issue may arise in the future, I wanted to preserve the status quo without making any admission either way. Far from me trying to change the terms of the agreement, the procurement document as presented sought to alter the terms. But again, I expected that any issue in the procurement would be addressed by the procurement manager before anything was submitted to the ALC. But because the timeline provided was exceedingly short, and because I was in and out of the office, I did not have time to call my client to discuss. Unbeknownst to me at the time, Mr. Magness signed the agreement and Chad Brown simply forwarded it on to the State. Due to the expedited timeframe, I did not have an opportunity to speak with my client before this all happened, and I believe the expedited timeframe is the likely culprit for any misunderstanding.
At bottom, however, it is not lost on me—and it should not be lost on your viewers—that the Board is challenging a law passed by the legislature, signed by the Governor, and defended by the Attorney General. While Amendment 33 is intended to protect substantive policy issues from political attack, I am not surprised that the same legislature may be looking for reasons to avoid paying a legal bill. My hope is that all relevant parties recognize the value in proper, competent, and unconflicted counsel representing both sides in a lawsuit of constitutional magnitude. I look forward to clearing my name and answering any legitimate questions that the ALC may have.”
Gilmore said the next step is for the board to investigate the contract changes, adding that there is no timeline yet for when that report is due.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KARK.
