At the October meeting of the Washington County Quorum Court, public comments and a read letter laid out findings from a special prosecutor who reviewed allegations about county property and equipment use by sheriff's office employees.

The special prosecuting attorney, Jason Barrett, wrote that a review of the Arkansas State Police investigation "does not demonstrate conduct that should be treated as theft of property under Arkansas law," and that while some use of county equipment had "merit," it was better characterized as an "illegal exaction" that should be handled as a civil matter under the Arkansas Constitution, Article 16, Section 13. Michael McCraddick read Barrett's letter aloud during public comment.

Why it matters: The judge's report and the prosecutor's conclusion have prompted sharply different public responses at the court meeting. Some residents said the report overstated the situation and called the public disclosure a political attack; others said the investigation showed problems that warrant administrative or civil follow-up.

The prosecutor's letter, as read at the meeting, described the principal allegation as claims that materials were taken from a county maintenance shed for use on an employee's private construction. Barrett wrote that the evidence did not support that allegation because the wiring at the maintenance shed was commercial grade while the wiring at the private home was residential grade. He concluded no criminal charges were warranted on those facts.

Public reaction: Katie McCratic (identified herself as from Lincoln) said the judge's report "made a mountain out of a molehill" and described the public presentation as premature, saying it "sowed distrust and discord in the county." McCraddick, who read the special prosecutor's letter, told the court he believed the judge's public report had been "dishonest and misleading."

The letter recommended any remedy for improper use of funds or property be pursued through civil causes of action under Article 16, Section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution rather than criminal prosecution. The letter also explained that the special prosecutor had been appointed to review and, if warranted, prosecute crimes but concluded the file did not support criminal charges in this matter.

No formal court action or vote on criminal prosecution was recorded in the meeting transcript excerpt. Speakers at the meeting urged different next steps: some asked for repayment or administrative remedies, while others urged that the matter be left to civil authorities and cautioned against using the meeting for political attacks.

The judge noted the full investigative report is available on the county website (washingtoncountyar.gov).