Developments in a lawsuit involving Ecclesia College, the Springdale church that received at least $600,000 in questionable taxpayer support and then shipped some back to legislators in a felonious kickback scheme, indicate Attorney General Leslie Rutledge isn’t as serious about getting the money back as she once claimed.

Sept. 7, Gov. Asa Hutchison’s Department of Finance and Administration asked the attorney general’s office about getting the money back.

Rutledge’s office said. “Attorney General Rutledge is reviewing all of the information available and plans to take appropriate action to recover any money owed to Arkansas taxpayers.”

Developments in an illegal exaction lawsuit against the college indicate “appropriate action” may not be forthcoming. That lawsuit is attempting to take depositions from legislators who helped Eccelsia get money, including Republican Reps. Charlie Collins and Jim Dotson.

Rutledge’s office filed a motion recently to quash legislative subpoenas in Jim Parsons’ lawsuit which also raises Freedom of Information Act questions about how Ecclesia spent the money. Her motion says legislators can’t be compelled to testify on account of legislative privilege. But the brief in support also argues that Parson has no cause of action because the money has already been spent by Ecclesia. It says:




Parsons acknowledges in his amended complaints, and it is widely-reported public knowledge, that Ecclesia has already spent the GIF grant funds that are at issue in Count II. In addition, former Ecclesia president Oren Paris III has already been ordered to pay $621,500 in restitution, the amount of public GIF money that flowed to Ecclesia in the kickback scheme. Id. As a result, and as a matter of law, Parsons has no valid cause of action for a “refund” of those same funds to the taxpayers under the illegal-exaction clause. See, e.g., White v. Ark. Capital Corp./Diamond State Ventures, 365 Ark. 200, 226 S.W.3d 825 (2006) (affirming dismissal of a taxpayer illegal-exaction complaint as moot when public grant funds had already been spent by the recipients); see also Wilson v. Walther, 2017 Ark. 270, 527 S.W.3d 709 (distinguishing White and holding that an illegal-exaction claim is not moot if the entity receiving the GIF funds kept an accounting of the funds and still has GIF funds in its account that could be refunded to the Treasury). Parsons is, therefore, not entitled to conduct any discovery regarding his illegal-exaction claim, from third parties or otherwise.

In short, if somebody receives state money illegally and spends it quickly, too bad for taxpayers. It’s gone.

In any case, the filing raises a question about Rutledge’s announcement to take “appropriate action” to recover money. I’m seeking a comment from the office.


UPDATE: A spokesman for Rutledge issued this statement:

The motion to quash does not mean the State is precluded from recovering the money through other means. The Attorney General remains committed to recovering the money through appropriate actions.

Here’s the state’s brief.

Joey McCutcheon and Matt Bishop, attorneys for Parsons, are expected to contest the state’s filing.

UPDATE: Mike Lee, Rutledge’s Democratic opponent for re-election, issued a statement:

Advertisement