Quorum Court postpones public discussion of sheriff's office internal probe after legal debate

Washington County’s County Services Committee postponed public discussion of an internal investigation into alleged misuse of county property at the sheriff’s office after members and legal advisers disagreed about whether the inquiry should be handled in public or in executive session.

The committee voted to postpone agenda item 7 — the county’s internal investigation into allegations of misuse of county property at the sheriff’s office — until next month or until an attorney general’s opinion is received. The motion to postpone, made by Justice Brauns and seconded by Justice Lines, passed after a roll call that produced nine votes in favor and six opposed.

The motion to remove item 7 from the agenda failed earlier in the meeting when Justice Brenz moved to remove the item. That motion received nine raised hands in favor but did not meet the two-thirds threshold (10 of 15) required to suspend the rules and remove an adopted agenda item, and therefore failed. The meeting began with the committee adopting the agenda on a motion by Justice Dennis, seconded by Justice Dean.

The central legal dispute cited during discussion was an Arkansas attorney general opinion issued in July 2024 that, according to several justices, classifies certain internal investigations and employee evaluations as personnel records exempt from public release via FOIA unless four specific conditions are met. Justice Lines said the opinion “identifies the investigation into the complaint as an employee evaluation or job performance,” and listed the four conditions she said must be met before records may be released.

County Attorney Lester said the attorney general opinion specifically addressed FOIA requests and observed that the material before the committee was not being released in response to a FOIA request. Lester told the court, “We're not really talking about the same thing,” and said the body has discretion about what it hears. Other members urged caution: Justice Lemming and others said personnel matters are typically discussed in executive session.

Several justices explicitly asked that the county seek a formal opinion from the attorney general to remove ambiguity. Justice Brauns said the panel needed “the final decision instead of playing around with it.” The committee’s eventual vote to postpone was framed as waiting for that opinion or holding the item at next month’s County Services meeting.

The committee chair confirmed the postponement and recorded the vote. The item will return to the County Services Committee agenda next month or when the attorney general’s opinion is received, per the motion’s language.

Ending: With the postponement in place, the committee moved on to the remaining agenda items. The court did not take any further substantive public action on the underlying investigation at this meeting; members said they may consider executive session options if and when the committee is asked to make an employment decision.