Cover Stories

Cover Storieshttp://www.arktimes.comen-US60Fairground welcomehttp://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=2b7a510d-3f2a-4a9f-9621-2b5952d70de7Little Rock wants to keep it. Jacksonville and other towns want to take it away. So, where does North Little Rock stand in regards to becoming the new home for the Arkansas State Fair?Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:00:00 GMTlindsey@arktimes.com (Eric Francis)Little Rock wants to keep it. Jacksonville and other towns want to take it away. So, where does North Little Rock stand in regards to becoming the new home for the Arkansas State Fair? ?We're not submitting an application, as such,? Mayor Pat Hays said Friday, ?though we feel North Little Rock and north of the river have some extremely attractive sites.? Hays said the city would support efforts by private developers seeking to lure the State Fair to North Little Rock or nearby. ??[I am] going to see what the fairgrounds [officials] pick as a site, then think about possible partnerships, possible incentives,? said Hays, who noted that he was only speaking for himself since the City Council had not taken up any fairgrounds-related issues yet. ?To my knowledge, [fair officials] have not made the threshold decision ? the decision to leave.? Hays said he's met several times with several landowners interested in submitting proposals to the State Fair, though he declined to name any of them or identify the location of the land. He did say that at least one property was within the city limits and at least one other was outside, and that the city would support the latter even though they weren't in its jurisdiction. Yet. ?If it isn't [in the city limits now], that doesn't mean two, four, six years from now it might not be,? he said. As for what form city support and incentives might take for a hometown fairgrounds candidate ? for instance, a tax increment financing (TIF) district ? Hays said ?any legal tools might be considered? but that no specifics had been discussed. ?I don't have anything on the table or off the table at the moment,? he said. Mediation: It?s not just for pre-trialhttp://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=dc3ef9ac-8eb5-4d31-871c-7dc69db98f42Most laymen think of mediation as a process that?s done before trial, with the hope of avoiding trial. And so it is, but there?s also a lesser-known mediation after trial, with the idea of avoiding a costly appeal. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:00:00 GMTdoug@arktimes.com (Doug Smith)Most laymen think of mediation as a process that's done before trial, with the hope of avoiding trial. And so it is, but there's also a lesser-known mediation after trial, with the idea of avoiding a costly appeal. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has made mediation available since last September. Only a couple of cases have gone through it, however, the great bulk of lawyers and clients choosing to follow the normal appeals process. The concept of resolving differences by means other than trial has gained popularity nationwide in recent years. In Act 1179 of 2003, the Arkansas legislature declared that, ?It is the duty of all trial and appellate courts of this state, and they are hereby vested with the authority, to encourage the settlement of cases and controversies pending before them by suggesting the referral of the case or controversy to an appropriate dispute resolution process ... ? The Arkansas Supreme Court regulates the legal system in Arkansas, and a Supreme Court committee recommended a pilot program in mediation for the Arkansas Court of Appeals, the state's second-highest court. When a party files an appeal from a trial court decision, the circuit clerk provides a form asking both sides if they'd like to mediate. If both do, the appeal is stayed, and a mediator is assigned from a list of mediators certified by the state Administrative Office of the Courts. ?Preparing a record of the trial is the greatest expense of appeal,? Chief Judge Larry Vaught of the Court of Appeals said. If both sides agree to mediation, they don't have to purchase a record. If the parties settle their differences through mediation, the case ends there. If they can't resolve their differences in 60 days, the case reverts to the normal appeals process. Supreme Court Justice Paul Danielson is an advocate of mediation, and chairman of the Court committee that oversees the Court of Appeals pilot program. It was Danielson who? suggested the program be established. The federal courts and some state courts employ mediation at the appellate level, he said, and, ?There are things you can do in mediation that you can't do in court.? Matters that would be public record in court can remain private in mediation. The opposing parties get personally involved in the negotiations, and that sometimes aids in reaching agreement. The Court of Appeals pilot program will eventually be evaluated, and decisions made on whether to continue the program and possibly even expand it to the Supreme Court. No date for that evaluation has been set, but the prospects for appellate mediation aren't bright. ?So far, there's not been a lot of interest,? Danielson said. ?I suspect if that continues, the program will be dropped.? Why are appellate mediation programs popular elsewhere and not in Arkansas? ?Arkansas doesn't have the congested dockets that many states have,? Danielson said. ?When I was a circuit judge, if someone really wanted a jury trial, we could get one in 4 to 8 months. In other states, you may wait a couple of years for a trial.? People who've waited years for a verdict are ready to get an appeal decided as quickly as possible. Arkansas's small population is largely why court dockets aren't as crowded as elsewhere, Danielson said ? ?Rural areas have few cases.? And, he added, ?I think we have a pretty good court system. People are taking care of business.? Jailhouse blueshttp://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=8db14c0f-1470-43be-b102-bfc71f7eff33Perry County Sheriff Scott Montgomery currently presides over one of the worst jails in Arkansas. Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMTarktimes@arktimes.com (Mara Leveritt)?Yakity-yak' from the pols. Money's bad. Judges mad. ?Tough's' gotten us by the ... wallet? Perry County Sheriff Scott Montgomery currently presides over one of the worst jails in Arkansas. Earlier this year, a state oversight committee noted: ?The county has more inmates than the jail's design capacity can accommodate. Inmates in excess of 12 are sent to other county jails for housing. As a result, the county has 773 outstanding warrants that cannot be served because the jail is too small. This means that people who should be in jail are on the streets.? In fact, Sheriff Montgomery says that's not exactly the case. Instead of sending prisoners to other counties when his jail's capacity of 12 has been reached, he admits he's been doubling ? and at times almost tripling ? his jail's legal capacity. ?We typically have 25 to 30 in there,? Montgomery says. ?The ones who don't have beds sleep on the floor. The standards say we can't do that, but we space them out. And we give them double mattresses.? Montgomery has been working for years to get a new county jail ? one that would relieve the chronic overcrowding. Next month, he'll move his crowded prisoners into a brand new, 28-bed jail. Is he happy? ?Worried? would be a better word. ?This jail was out of compliance [with state standards] for several years, since way before I became sheriff in January 2007. People started working to get a new jail back in the early part of this decade. ?The first battle was over location. Nobody wanted the jail built near them. So the site they finally agreed on was here, next to our current one. I voted against it because of the site. We were limited in how big we could build it, and there's not much room for expansion.? The next battle was over funding. In 2005, county officials asked for a tax that would generate $3 million for a new jail. Voters said no. In 2007, however, faced with increased residential crime, they did approve a jail tax of $1.3 million. The result, in Montgomery's view, is a new jail that's already too small, with minimal room for expansion. He reflects, ?We should have built a jail with 50 to 60 beds.? At the same time, Montgomery says he understands the voters' dilemma. They're frightened by crime on one hand, and facing a harsh economy on the other. ?People are very concerned. Our thefts, right now, are sky-rocketing. I think that's because our economy's so bad. People are really struggling. And the more desperate people get, the more crime you have to contend with.? Perry County's situation is a microcosm of the angst being felt across the state. In a conference room at the state Capitol last week, a crime victim, two police officers, and several county and state officials gathered to, essentially, wring their hands about the severity of Arkansas's lock-up crisis. Shirley Simpson of North Little Rock, told the group that burglars had broken into her house two years in a row. ?The police know who did it,? she said, ?but there was no room for them in the jail.? She demanded more prisons and jails. ?Think of us victims,? she said. A county judge from northwest Arkansas told the group: ?We're either going to keep prisoners in jail or repair county roads. That's the decision I've got to make.? A state senator fretted that, ?Every one of us knows you can't appear soft on crime and be re-elected.? To which, a member of the Arkansas Board of Corrections replied: ?It's not about ?soft on crime' anymore. It's about utilizing resources.? The spokesman for the state prison system reiterated that view. ?These are desperate times,? she said. ?Our backs are against the wall.? ? ?A very dangerous place' Conditions in some county jails add to the concern. For the safety of prisoners, jail staff and people living near jails, Arkansas has set minimum standards for jail operations. A two-person state office coordinates volunteer committees to inspect the state's 69 county lock-ups and 38 city jails. The inspections are announced well in advance. Even so, some of the reports that result from those inspections are hair-raising. Here are a few excerpts from letters the state Criminal Detention Facilities Review Committees sent this year to county judges about deficiencies in their jails. Fulton County: ?insufficient staff,? ?very dangerous for inmates and staff,? ?visitation very dangerous.? Jackson County: ?holding more than double capacity,? ?insufficient staff,? ?growing problems,? ?potential for a great disaster to happen.? Ouachita: ?Chronic overcrowding,? ?inmates are sleeping on the floor,? ?inadequate security threatens health and safety of the staff and inmates and potentially the community.? Pulaski: ?Too small for the county's needs.? Scott: ?A health and security risk.? Sharp: ?Badly understaffed,? ?a dangerous situation waiting to happen.? Besides Perry, eight counties are currently building new jails, and three are expanding existing ones. If improvements are not made quickly enough ? or if the improvements are inadequate ? the jail standards office can ask the state attorney general to petition the local circuit court to force the jail into compliance or order the jail closed. That's exactly what happened in Newton County. In July, that jail did close. Alarming as the committees' reports may appear, the actuality may be worse. Al Garrett, who was appointed earlier this year by Gov. Mike Beebe to serve on one of the inspection committees, says he was ?shocked? by what he considered the ?sloppy? inspections in which he participated and the ?fraudulent? reports that resulted. Before retiring, Garrett, of Perryville, managed the state Child Support Enforcement Division and Home Energy Assistance Programs for the Arkansas Department of Human Services. He came to the committee with a background in reconciling audits and managing program compliance reviews. However, after his committee performed a one-hour inspection tour of the Pulaski County Regional Jail and a one-hour review of the Pulaski County Juvenile Detention Facility, he came away concerned that the inspections had been ?fake,? and that the subsequent reports, which ?indicated full compliance with every standard,? were ?lacking in integrity.? In April, Garret sent a letter to Beebe. ?As you are aware, many of the standards require that written policies and procedures be in place, specifying minimum criteria and written documentation for many of them,? he wrote. ?However, the inspections had touched on few of these, and we looked at neither policies and procedures nor the accompanying documentation requirements.? Garrett told the governor that his experience on the committee left him feeling ?disappointed, thinking that, if the 23,000 adults and nearly 1,200 juveniles detained in the prior year at these facilities had been dependent on these inspections, they would have been in serious jeopardy.? He's received no response. ? A system that's crashed County jails are meant to hold two types of people: those who are awaiting trial and, in some cases, those who've been tried and sentenced to relatively short terms for misdemeanors. As of October, the total capacity of all 72 county adult jails was 8,461. Juvenile offenders are held in some county jails and in secure facilities operated by the Department of Youth Services. Their combined count in October was 1,286. Offenders convicted of felonies are sentenced to the Arkansas Department of Correction. For decades, however, that department has itself been chronically short of space, despite gigantic expansions. Its solution has been to back up convicted felons awaiting transfer to state prisons in their county jails until space in the state system becomes available. County officials complain bitterly that, while officials in the state prison system admit that their per-inmate cost runs about $62.61 a day, the state pays counties only $28 a day for all of their inmates backed up in local jails. As one county judge put it, ?Our costs aren't fixed, but our reimbursement is.? The situation has grown so absurd that some counties, such as Pulaski, have to pay to farm out their prisoners to jails in other counties because their own jails are loaded up with state inmates. This is a particular problem for Pulaski County. When it proves impossible even to free beds by farming out prisoners, jails simply postpone accepting new ones. By early October, first-term Little Rock District Judge Alice Lightle had grown so disgusted with that situation that she wrote to city officials to express her surprise and dismay that prisoners she ordered to jail were being turned away for lack of space. Mayor Mark Stodola, to whom Lightle's letter was addressed, said he understood the judge's frustration but that the problem ? lack of jail space and lack of public support for new taxes to build new jails ? was well known. He told a reporter, ?I read the letter and said, ?Yeah. What's new?' ? In contrast to jails, prisons are built for offenders who've been convicted of felonies that carry longer sentences. In 1980, the state corrections agency consisted of one department with six units. In 1993, it was divided into two departments: the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), which runs prisons, and the Department of Community Correction (DCC), which manages probation and parole. Together they now operate 26 units. By now, the ADC has almost 16,000 inmates under its control, 30 percent more than in 2000. And the pace of growth continues. Last week, ADC spokesman Dina Tyler told the group at the state Capitol, ?The department is in a difficult spot, in that we're growing at a rate of 66 inmates a month. That's twice the rate we had last year.? Most states have begun to slow the rate at which they're sending people to prison. By contrast, the U.S. Justice Department has reported that only four states ? Florida, Arizona, South Carolina and Mississippi ? are imprisoning residents faster than Arkansas. The DCC, meanwhile, has approximately 55,000 probationers and parolees under its control. (Probation is a sentence to supervision in lieu of prison; parole is supervision after release from prison.) DCC officials report a 4 to 5 percent annual growth in parolees (and 1 percent growth in probationers). According to the most recent U.S. Justice Department analysis, Arkansas's rate of parolees-to-adult-population is triple the national average, and second-highest in the nation. In his efforts to tackle the national rate of incarcerating Americans ? now five times that of the rest of the world ? Sen. James Webb of Virginia has noted: ?Either we are the most evil people on earth, or we are doing something very wrong.? Arkansas's statistics raise a parallel question: Are Arkansans worse than other Americans? If not, we've got a lot to correct. ? The quagmire The entire system ? from arrest to jail, to probation or prison, and then to parole ? responds to decisions by prosecutors, courts and juries. And, of course, those decisions are predicated on laws passed by the legislature. Arkansas's surge in incarceration reflects a national surge that began in the 1970s, when states began enacting strict laws against drug abuse. Debate rages about whether these laws have been effective, and to what extent, if any, tightened drug laws may have spurred the growth of gangs and drug-related crimes. But there is no doubt that the zero-tolerance laws of the past few decades led to explosive prison growth throughout America. The figures here are telling. Today, the number of offenders in the ADC and DCC together totals about 71,000. That's about 25 of every 1,000 residents. Add those being held in county adult and juvenile jails and in juvenile facilities run by the state Department of Youth Services, and the total number of Arkansans under some kind of governmental control approaches 80,000 (not counting federal inmates or persons held in city jails). That's only about a thousand less than the population of Fort Smith, Arkansas's second-largest city. Not surprisingly, the cost of housing, feeding, guarding or supervising, and providing medical care for such a large population is enormous ? and growing. Even with recent cutbacks, the combined budgets of the ADC and DCC will top $344 million. To put that in perspective, next year's budget for the University of Arkansas system is $390 million. Unfortunately, the cost comparison of prisons to higher education doesn't end there. At the current daily rate of $62.61, the cost of keeping an inmate in an Arkansas prison for a year runs to $22,853. That amount would pay for a four-year scholarship to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, books and fees included. Yet, while state prison costs have risen, counties are stuck keeping backed-up state inmates at a state-set reimbursement rate of $28 that hasn't changed for a decade. Rep. Allen Kerr of Little Rock has fought hard to get that changed, but his attempt in the last legislative session to raise the rate to $40 failed. ?I believe, if we've got a bill to pay, we need to pay it,? Kerr says. ?When the state realizes an increase in cost, it should take into consideration that the counties are providing a service to them, and should pay for that accordingly.? Nevertheless, Kerr does not expect an increase to be approved in the next budgetary session. ?It's really hard to make your case that we need more money when there's less money than there was.?? Kerr said he'd tried to impress upon Gov. Beebe the urgency of the counties' need for higher payments. But Kerr said that the governor's spokesman, Matt DeCample, told him, ?This governor does not want to change that rate at this time.? Kerr said that Beebe has instead ?tasked those in the systems to come up with alternative solutions? to escalating incarceration. It was for that reason that Kerr called the representatives of law enforcement, county governments, and corrections agencies to meet last week at the Capitol. All of the dozen or so participants were taking a hard look at statistics. ? Where to cut? According to polls, most citizens believe prisons hold mostly violent offenders, but that is not the case, either nationally or here. In Arkansas, more than 53 percent of all inmates sentenced to the ADC are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Someone at the table proposed, ?We're going to have to sort out the folks we're just mad at from the ones we're afraid of.? But Chief Stuart Thomas of the Little Rock Police Department begged to differ. ?I've heard the suggestion that a nonviolent offender is not a problem. We seem to forget that a nonviolent felon is still a felon and a problem in our communities.? He noted that many of these people were the ones who were ?breaking into houses and stealing people's TVs and Xboxes, and GPSs. They traffic in stolen merchandise. And then they go to dope houses. And buy guns.? That noted, the group looked at the single biggest category of crime for which inmates are in prison ? one that scarcely existed three decades ago. One in five state inmates (21.4 percent) today is serving time on some sort of drug charge. (After drugs, the two biggest categories are sexual offenses, at 16.6 percent, and homicide, at 14.5 percent.) What about drug laws? In fact, the legislature has already cut back on some. A bill passed in 1997 to address the growing problem of illegal methamphetamine required that inmates convicted of meth crimes serve 70 percent of their sentences, despite whatever ?good time? they might accrue. By 2005, that requirement was pushed back to 50 percent, because of how drastically it had exacerbated overcrowding. Last year, the loosened law was extended to allow more inmates to leave. The ADC said the move would free up 600 beds. They were immediately filled. Now, decisions to lock up drug users are getting more scrutiny. Sen. Bill Pritchard of Elkins, the Senate minority whip, suggested it ?may be time to revisit those meth laws again, and make meth offenders serve the same as everyone else,? without the mandatory minimum sentence. Pritchard, a self-described ?conservative Republican,? also reminded the group that Arkansas law makes the second offense for simple possession of marijuana a felony. He thinks it's time to change that too, though he admitted that a bill he introduced last session to make marijuana possession a felony only after the fourth arrest, so that it ?mirrored? the state's felony DWI law, was the ?baddest-beat bill of the session.? Pritchard mentioned that his brother-in-law was an addict who eventually killed himself. Partly because of that, Pritchard is adamant that the jail and prison crisis stems in large part from the folly of trying to address mental health issues with incarceration. He also believes the state may some day be held liable for that decision. Recalling the battle the state lost in 2002 when the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the state's system of funding for education unconstitutional, Pritchard asks a rhetorical question. ?We think we took a hickey on the Lakeview case?? With regard to a potential case about imprisoning the mentally ill, he answers, ?I assure you I could win that one, and I have never taken a course in law.? In the present, however, Pritchard has been pushing hard to reduce the flow into prisons by expanding use of special courts for drug offenders, the mentally ill, for juveniles and even for veterans. ?Those courts aren't easy,? he says. ?Some people say, ?Let me out. I'd rather go to prison.' But the ones that stay in really get help, and at a fraction of what it costs to put them in prison.? Special courts offer counseling and closely monitor an offender while he or she continues to live at home, hold a job, and pay taxes. Pritchard estimates that it costs roughly 10 times as much to hold a prisoner for a year in the ADC as it does for the same amount of time in drug court. Moreover, drug court sentences can be shorter, and fewer drug court graduates re-offend. Part of the reason for the courts' success is that many postpone final sentencing until an offender has either failed or succeeded in the program. ?So the judges have a huge carrot and a huge stick they can use,? Pritchard says. ?The carrot is that, if they complete the program, they don't get that felony conviction. And the stick is that, if they drop out, they're sent straight to prison.? Noting, with clear regret, that Beebe had not approved a relatively modest request for $5 million to expand the state's drug court system, Pritchard insisted the approach was essential. ?I'm telling you, this is the answer,? he told the group ? which did not seem to be finding many others. ? Looming balloon Whatever is done in the short term, Arkansans will still face the harsh reality of providing for a prison population that is growing increasingly geriatric. As for everyone in the free world, that means increased medical expenses. Of the almost 16,000 people in the ADC right now, 1,799 have been sentenced to life ? and in Arkansas, every life sentence is, effectively, life without parole. Arkansas is one of only 10 states that require any inmate sentenced to life to serve life, unless his sentence is commuted by the governor. The state is bound to care for all these inmates until they die in prison. That could be a long time, with projected steep increases in cost. Even in the improbable event that costs could be held to what they are today, every life sentence handed down can be predicted to cost taxpayers more than $1 million. Rebound poses a similar problem. Too many inmates end up serving what almost amount to life sentences, though they do it in increments. Four of every 10 inmates released from prison return within three years. Prison officials admit that that's largely because ?the people coming out have no support, and so they come back to us.? Finding solutions to these problems, as Gov. Beebe has requested, is going to require a wholesale re-examination of how Arkansas copes with a broad spectrum of issues, from troubled families on one end to support for persons leaving prison on the other. As Mary Parker, a member of the Board of Corrections, put it: ?Hard decisions are going to have to be made. There are so many social problems out there that the prison system is called on to solve.? The meeting did produce two decisions. One was that more meetings were imperative. The other: that next time, judges will be included. Not your father?s kind of justicehttp://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=fbf5f392-f999-4870-aec7-c3d5ee218ad4The right to a trial by a jury of one?s peers is still widely regarded as a great virtue of the American Way of Life. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMTdoug@arktimes.com (Doug Smith)The right to a trial by a jury of one's peers is still widely regarded as a great virtue of the American Way of Life. But statistics show that fewer Americans are exercising that right, at least in regard to civil lawsuits. We seem to have lost faith in our peers. The number of lawsuits decided by juries has declined rather steeply over the last 40 years or so and the trend continues downward, as opposing parties choose other ways to resolve their differences. This decline causes considerable concern in some quarters. Is the quality of American justice declining also? ?The jury system is the best thing there is,? says Peter Miller, surely Arkansas's most recognizable lawyer. ?The combined intellect of a jury is greater than any individual. When I'm standing before a jury, I think the best kind of justice in the world is going to be done.? Yet Miller rarely stands before a jury, though he has a huge law practice, in part the result of his extensive advertising. His smiling face, seen on television, billboards and the back of the Little Rock telephone directory, is familiar to all. His office handles 600 to 700 cases a year, he says, and litigates 20 to 25. The number that actually go to a jury is even smaller. ?Litigates? mean ?files suit.? Most of Miller's clients settle before a suit is filed. A few more settle after the suit is filed. Miller's kind of law practice wasn't around 40 years ago, at least not in Arkansas. A prominent old-school Little Rock trial lawyer, now deceased, said a few years back that people like Peter Miller, with their advertising, their numerous clients and their few trials, had taken the fun, and some of the worth, out of the practice of personal-injury law. Most lawyers settle more cases than they litigate, as Miller points out. ?The power that I have over an insurance-company lawyer is their fear that a jury will give me more money than they're offering,? Miller says. His fear is that the jury will give less, or none at all. ?Ultimately, the client makes the decision,? Miller says.? Do client and lawyer want to take the risk of waiting a year or so for a trial they may lose, or do they want the bird in hand? Most laymen would take the bird even if their lawyer wasn't urging them to do so.? They may need compensation quickly, even at a discount. They may be distrustful of the whole court system. But that's always been true, to some extent. Why is the number of jury trials falling even further now? Over the last 10 years, only about 1 percent of civil cases in Arkansas courts have gone to a jury. Once, the number would have been in the double digits. Up until about 1925, as many as 25 to 30 percent of civil lawsuits nationally went to a jury. A 2007 study by the National Center for State Courts showed Arkansas in a group of about a dozen states that had fewer than 10 jury trials per 100,000 population. In fact, Arkansas was next to the bottom, with 6.6 trials per 100,000. Only Wyoming (6.4) had fewer. Alabama topped the list, at 59.2 trials per 100,000, followed by Illinois, with 46.7. A drop in jury trials is visible at the federal level too. In 1962, 11.5 percent of the civil cases in U.S. district courts were tried by juries. By 2002, the percentage had dropped to 1.8. In the 12-month period that ended Sept. 30, 2008, the percentage was .9. The rising cost of litigation and the rising workload of judges are two reasons for the reduction in trials. The number of lawsuits isn't getting smaller, just the number that go to trial. The shrinkage results also from the increased use of alternative methods of? resolving disputes, particularly mediation and arbitration. All three branches of government seem to have agreed that alternatives to litigation are good. Legislative bodies authorize them. Judges, some of them overworked, try to avoid trials by encouraging ? maybe even ordering ? opposing parties to give the alternatives a try. Executives often promote their use. President Obama is doing that right now, caught as he is in the great medical-malpractice fight, now a part of the even larger health-care reform fight. Doctors and their insurers want limits on jury awards; plaintiffs' lawyers are strongly opposed. Obama, a lawyer himself, won't support limits on damages, but he's urging more and better alternatives to litigation. A few years back, the Arkansas legislature approved a ?tort reform? law making it harder for plaintiffs to win medical malpractice cases. As it was intended to do, the law has made lawyers reluctant to take malpractice cases. ?I get a hundred calls a year on medical malpractice,? Peter Miller said. ?I may take one or two. If you want to sue a doctor or a hospital for negligence, it'll cost at least $100,000 [paid by the lawyer] and take 3 or 4 years.? The only medical malpractice cases Miller will take are those involving catastrophic injuries ? blindness, say, or paralysis for life. People who've been injured? less seriously go without compensation. Further ?tort reform? will mean still fewer cases heard by juries. ?Tort reform is driven by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,? Miller said. ?There's nothing to reform. They want to take control of juries, to not allow juries to give what juries think is fair.? Few lawyers will say bad things about the jury system on the record. It has a following. Anonymously, some lawyers who represent corporate clients will speak more frankly. Here is one such lawyer, in an online comment about an article deploring the decline of jury trials: ?Trial by jury in civil cases has been largely abolished in most of the rest of the world. It doesn't seem to undermine anyone else's ?faith in the system.' ?Deepening' the jury pool will mean even less-sophisticated jurors and turn the trial system into more of a lottery than it is today. Capping legal fees will make it even harder for those with just causes to be confident of victory and is seriously Constitutionally suspect for that reason. ?If people's option of a trial by jury was being infringed, that would be something to think about. Complaining about people's purely voluntary, and highly intelligent, failure to exercise that right is like thinking that the First Amendment is withering away every time someone fails to spend his day giving Nazi speeches.? ? ? ?In mediation, the opposing parties agree ? sometimes with arms twisted by the court ? to seek help from a neutral third party, often a lawyer, or a retired judge or someone with expertise in a particular field, such as banking or construction. Both sides pay for the mediator and they can choose the person from a list of state-certified mediators. Sometimes the judge picks the mediator. The mediator acts as a go-between and motivator for the two parties. If the parties reach agreement with the mediatior's help, the case ends there. If not, the case proceeds toward trial in the normal fashion. The mediator does not make a decision, and the parties do not give up their right to a jury trial if mediation doesn't work. Mediation is widely used in Arkansas. Arbitration, also widely used in some states, is less common here because no general arbitration statute has been enacted. But big companies often require arbitration clauses in contracts, such as those between a credit card company and its customers, or a fast-food chain and its franchisees. In arbitration, disputes are assigned to an arbiter or panel of arbiters. These arbiters make binding decisions. (Arbitration is how major-league baseball teams and their players settle highly publicized contract disputes, That's probably what many people think of when they think about arbitration.) No judge in Arkansas uses mediation more than Faulkner Circuit Judge Michael A. Maggio of Conway. As part of a broader program to manage his docket efficiently, Maggio requires mediation of every case for which a jury trial longer than one day is requested. Sixty to 70 percent of the cases that go to mediation are settled that way, he said. To Maggio, mediation is primarily a scheduling tool. Cutting down on the number of cases that go to jury trial allows quicker access to the court system, he said. He had no thoughts on the question of whether mediated justice is better or worse than jury justice. Chris Heil of Little Rock, president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association, says mediation is a good thing when both parties agree to it. Even when mediation is court-ordered, ?it's not something we try to avoid, ? he said. Mediation is cheaper than going to trial, and there's no risk involved. If the parties can't agree in mediation, the case proceeds as it would have anyway. Heil has a lower opinion of arbitration, and is glad the legislature hasn't required it to be used as widely as it is in some other states. Arbiters render binding decisions, he noted. ?A jury is an expression of society's norm,? Heil said. ?Any decision about people's lives should be made by their peers, not by one arbiter who may bring his own prejudices to the case.? Kelly Olson is an associate professor at the William H. Bowen School of Law at UALR.? She directs the mediation clinic at the school, as well as being a state-certified mediator herself. She thinks the decline in the number of jury? trials is both good and bad. ?We want to make sure that everyone has the right to a jury trial if that's what they need,? she said. ?But some people have a misunderstanding of what happens when they get their day in court. They think they'll tell their story, and then they'll be given a big amount of money. It doesn't usually work that way.? Judges don't have as much flexibility as the opposing parties do, and in mediation the parties make the decisions, Olson said. In divorce cases, for example, ?Nobody knows more about what will work best for the family than the family members themselves.? Both mediation and arbitration are ?quiet and confidential,? not conducted in public view as trials are,? and that may be a large consideration for the parties. ?There are much higher satisfaction rates with mediation than with litigation by the parties,? Olson said. ?They don't have resentment toward the legal system or each other. After mediation, they're less likely to go back to court within five years [than if they'd gone through litigation].? Robert Steinbuch is another associate professor at the UALR Law School, and a defender of litigation. Arbitration and mediation can be useful, he said, but litigation too is a kind of ?alternative.? ??It's an alternative to the wild, wild West. This is where we peacefully settle our disputes. When people say we're a litigious society, I ask what's the alternative. Somebody exacting revenge? We have a lot of disputes because we have a lot of people.? ?The Talmud says that if a person is wronged, he should not compromise, but be given justice,? Steinbuch said. ?Solomon offering to split the baby is often cited as a case of mediation. It's not. It's litigation. Solomon was never going to split the baby. When he threatened to, the real mother waived her right. Solomon then acted as a judge. He awarded the whole baby to the rightful parent. That's not mediation, that's not compromise. ?Judges bemoan their workload, and that complaint is justified to some extent,? Steinbuch said. ?But the job of the judiciary is to resolve disputes. If judges are overworked, they don't have to be judges. Judges are elected in this state. They don't have to run. Federal judges don't have to stay on the bench. ?That doesn't mean that some dockets are not completely overwhelming. They are. The solution to that is to hire more judges, expend more public funds.? Litigation is not only about righting wrongs, Steinbuch said. When people see the outcome of lawsuits, they're likely to alter their own behavior. If a corporation gets hit with a big judgment, other companies are less likely to do the thing that got the first company in trouble. ? ? ?Litigation has no better friend? U.S. District Judge William R. Wilson Jr. of Little Rock, and now that he's stepped down from fulltime judging to what the federal court system calls ?senior status,? he may be even more outspoken than before. That's saying a lot. Wilson, possibly Arkansas's best trial lawyer before he was appointed to the bench by President Clinton, said, ?There's no doubt that civil jury trials are going down. I think it's a bad thing. It really bothers me that in franchise cases, the chains have a mandatory arbitration clause in the contract. If somebody here has a dispute, they find they have to go to arbitration instead of a jury trial. We tried to hold that illegal, but the Eighth Circuit [federal Court of Appeals] and the Supreme Court upheld the clauses. The courts have said it's national policy to favor arbitration. Who said that people wanted arbitration? It's only special interests who think there's too much justice going around. Arbitration works in a lot of things, like contract disputes between companies. But I hate that little folks have to go to arbitration.? Another reason that jury trials have gone down, Wilson said, is that some of today's judges never tried cases when they were practicing lawyers. Because of their lack of experience with jury trials, ?They get mad if the lawyers won't settle. Like it's not our job to try cases.? Lawyers may be reluctant to go to trial too, because of their own inexperience. The number of lawyers is increasing as the number of trials decreases. National groups such as the American Board of Trial Advocates have been forced to revise their membership requirements, so that lawyers can become members with fewer tried cases. Philip S. Anderson of Little Rock, a past president of the American Bar Association, represents the sort of clients who write arbitration clauses into their contracts. ?Parties want to maintain some degree of secrecy,? he said. He doesn't believe there's been a general loss of confidence in the jury system, but says ?some defendants in commercial cases feel more comfortable trying a case before an arbitrator than trying a complicated commercial case before a jury.? But Anderson thinks the biggest reason for the growth of arbitration and mediation is the? expense of going to trial today. ?The discovery process has been taken to such extremes that it's far more expensive to go to trial today than even 10 years ago.? The new technology contributes to the increased expense. ?It takes longer to prepare for cases than it used to. Recovering e-mails can be enormously expensive and time-consuming.? ?The jury system is very important,? Anderson said. ?It's what keeps our system of justice from being elitist.? Jurors feel a tie to the system of justice, he said. ?Polls have shown that people who've served on juries have more faith in the system than people who haven't.? Even so, Anderson's not alarmed by the increased use of alternate methods of dispute resolution. ?I think it's a natural evolution of our system of justice. It's market-driven. Alternate methods are more efficient in many cases.? ? ? ? Strongmanhttp://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=99619416-26d2-4b17-a68c-c53a594dd5f3November 2008: For the first time in years, it seemed the heat was on North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Henry Hays during an election. Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMTlindsey@arktimes.com (Eric Francis)November 2008: For the first time in years, it seemed the heat was on North Little Rock Mayor Patrick Henry Hays during an election. He had a widely-known and reasonably well-financed opponent in businessman Walter ?Bubba? Lloyd (plus two no-name challengers); the police and firefighter unions had thrown their support to Lloyd, not the first time they'd bet against Hays, and his forays into tax increment financing (or TIF) districts had fueled tension with school district officials and drawn critics to speak out at City Council meetings. He was getting ribbed for his direction of city dollars to downtown projects ? including the Maritime Museum display of the Razorback submarine. Some commentators on neighborhood blogs were raising the question of whether, after 20 years in office, the city's longest-serving mayor had developed a sense of entitlement. Election Day arrived, and Hays drew his smallest share of the vote in any of his mayoral races ? yet he still walked away with 55.7 percent and a sixth consecutive term in City Hall. Hays is on the kind of roll politicians dream of. Over six campaigns, his average take of the vote has been 76.4 percent. He's served more years than any previous North Little Rock mayor and is tied for the most terms (with Ross Lawhon, who won six two-year terms but didn't serve out all of them). In 2000, his popularity was such that he didn't even draw any opponents, only the second time in the city's history that has happened; the other was Lawhon in 1951. (Hays had no General Election opponent in 1988, his first campaign for mayor, but had beaten incumbent Terry Hartwick in the Democratic primary; subsequent city elections were nonpartisan.)? Given all this, some political insiders have a title for Hays: Unbeatable. Asked if he thought anyone could take the mayor in a straight-up election, Ward 4 Alderman Charlie Hight didn't mince words. ?Not at this point in time, no,? he said. ?I don't think anybody in their right mind would run against him.? ? Born to run for office ?I've always been interested in politics, government and various leadership opportunities,? said the 61-year-old Hays in his high-ceilinged office at North Little Rock's 1915 City Hall. ?I enjoyed public service and had been leaning toward elected service.? The son of a railroad worker, Hays grew up in the Baring Cross and Park Hill neighborhoods of North Little Rock. He graduated from the city's public high school in 1965, then attended college and law school at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, while working for Union Pacific during the summers. He still recalls sometimes finishing his finals in Fayetteville, then taking a midnight switch engine back to Little Rock. ?I was somewhat envious of people who had five-day jobs and were off on weekends,? he said. Despite his family ties to the railroad, Hays says he knew his future ?wasn't as a fireman or engineer on the railroad,? but he also acknowledged his grades alone ? ?mostly Bs, a few Cs, a few As? ? weren't going to land him a job. So during law school in 1971, he started applying for internships. He wrote the congressional offices of Wilbur Mills, William Fulbright, John McClellan and George McGovern, as well as the Union Pacific legal department. It was McClellan's office that offered him a position, and Hays credits his experience in the student division of the American Bar Association ? he'd been elected its president that summer ? with helping him land the spot. Hays wound up finishing his law degree while working in Washington, D.C., taking classes both there and at UALR. But though he was offered a permanent job with McClellan's office, Hays turned it down because of his own political ambitions: He felt the likelihood to serve in elected office would be minimal if he stayed in D.C. So it was back to North Little Rock, where he was hired by City Attorney Sam Hilburn. His first official day of work as a lawyer was April Fool's Day, 1974. Hays made his first run at election in the city attorney race of 1975, but lost to Jim Hamilton. A couple of years later, he won election as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1979-80. From early on his eyes were on the General Assembly. His father, Arthur Henry Hays, had run and lost twice against Rep. Henry Osterloh. In 1987, the younger Hays took his shot at the incumbent, and unseated Osterloh with 63 percent of the vote. Ironically, he had anticipated staying in the Ledge for one simple reason ? you don't find yourself doing the one thing that local elected officials seem to do every day. ?I don't think any of us like to say no,? he said. ?I just sort of felt this job [mayor] would be saying no on a frequent basis. You were just too close to those people who didn't like what you did and wouldn't hesitate to tell you about it.? ?Which is the case,? he added. Still, he took the plunge in 1988 and unseated incumbent Mayor Terry Hartwick (who was in the midst of a personal scandal) with 65 percent of the vote. Thus started his unbeaten streak as the city's chief executive. ? A smooth operator Shortly before 7 o'clock on a Monday evening in May, Pat Hays walked into the Council Chamber at City Hall and paused in the doorway to exchange a few words with someone. When he heard the audience falling silent, he quickly turned to them and said with a big smile, ?Y'all still got two minutes, so you can keep going!? That drew chuckles from the crowd, as did his flub later on when he accidentally introduced the state champion North Little Rock High School softball team as the baseball team. ?I was stunned by the beauty,? he explained, drawing laughs from the girls, their coaches, and most of the room. That sense of self-deprecation is just one reason people like Hays so much. He's not afraid to laugh at himself and, let's be honest, there are plenty of opportunities ? he can be a bit of a goofball. His easy manner makes him approachable, and he knows how to connect with voters. Take, for example, his penchant for issuing proclamations. Are you turning 100? Did you win a blue ribbon at the State Fair? If Hays hears about a noteworthy milestone, he'll have a resolution before the council and be handing you a plaque declaring a day in your name. Last year, when an Argenta resident threw a birthday party for his dog, Hays arrived on his bicycle with a plaque honoring Mojo Day. You get the picture. Literally: Someone's always taking photos when he hands out those plaques, and those photos doubtless go onto the fridge, or get e-mailed to family and friends, and the folks shaking his hand in the photo aren't likely to forget soon that Pat Hays did this for me ? . That's why, in the judgment of one long-time City Council observer, Hays is the most popular North Little Rock politician of the last two decades, with the possible exception of the late City Clerk Mary Munns. During his two-decade tenure, Hays has won firm allies both inside and outside of city government. One of them is Martin Gipson, who spent 27 years representing Ward 1 on the City Council and has been Hays' next-door neighbor since the early 1980s. A frequent ally during their years on the council, Gipson said Hays has a number of strengths that have helped him through the years. ?He's a consensus builder, and I think that's one of the things,? Gipson said. ?He's been able to keep good people in key positions for most of his time in office. The other thing, too, he's allowed the City Council members to bring issues to the council, whether he agreed with them or disagreed with them.? How significant is that last? Very, according to Gipson, who notes that, unlike many other cities across the state, no sitting alderman has ever challenged Hays in an election. Yet for all his political assets, nobody's perfect. So the question was put to Gipson: Does Hays have any shortcomings? ?If he did,? the mayor's next-door neighbor said, ?I wouldn't tell you.? ? Not everyone's a fan Lloyd, Hays' 2008 opponent, does not share Gipson's compunction regarding areas where the mayor may fall short. ?There is a total lack of transparency in the government we have in North Little Rock,? said Lloyd, who received 36.6 percent of the vote last fall. ?We don't know where the money is. They should be more up front with that. At this point, with the economy where it is, we should be more sensitive with people who can't pay their bills and how we're spending money. We haven't tightened our belts fully.? Lloyd said it was the mayor's support of sales tax increases and rate hikes at the city-owned Electric Department that pushed him into the race, which he described as ?a Reagan conservative versus an Obama liberal.? But that doesn't make him an implacable, lifelong Hays foe. ?First of all, I've voted for him before,? said Lloyd, who owns Ad America, a promotional products company in North Little Rock. ?There was a time I thought he was doing a good job.? But that time is gone. Now, Lloyd says, Hays exhibits a sense of entitlement. He noted that the attitude he sees from City Hall is, ?We'll do it now and if nobody challenges us, what have we lost?? ?It seems to have worked for him, to an extent,? he added. Another criticism from Lloyd is that, despite being in office 20 years and having ?taken advantage of strong Democratic ties to the black community,? Hays has never appointed an African-American to head up one of the city's major departments, which he identified as police, fire, code, or water (before it was merged into the Central Arkansas Water regional utility). ?I think that's unusual,? said Lloyd, who believes there are ?qualified black candidates? in the city to head those departments. ?I think the black community, he's throwing them bones.? Dorothy Williams has a different view of whether Hays has done right by African-American neighborhoods. A longtime resident and leader in the predominantly black Glenview neighborhood on the city's east side, she says blacks have benefited from the mayor's vision. ?There has not been a lack of basically anything,? said Williams. I've found with Mayor Hays, if anybody has any community things in our area, he takes the time to become involved in it. Let people know he's concerned. As far as his job, I think we've been treated very fair by that.? All of which sounds pretty typical for a community leader talking about a popular local politician ? until you consider that Williams is also a member of the North Little Rock School Board, which is currently suing Hays and the City Council over a last-minute push to divert property taxes for the Enclave condominiums by Verizon Arena to a TIF district, which would then subsidize future development projects. For her part, Williams dismissed the suit as a factor in her relationship with Hays. ?Everybody has to do what they feel they have to do,? she said. ?There's no strain. ? Mayor Hays is a fair and honest person and is doing what he thinks needs to be done. It's no barrier, speaking of me.? Williams added that she believes ?the city and the school district will still work together and work things out to make North Little Rock the city it should be.? ? Uniform opposition Among Hays' most persistent critics have been the unions representing police officers and firefighters, who have gone to the mat (and court) over issues of manpower and pay. Last fall, members of both unions could frequently be seen campaigning for Lloyd at rallies or on street corners. In the wake of the election, International Association of Fire Fighters Local 35 president Ray Vance says, the union's relationship with the mayor was ?cool.? ?I would say ... you know, you hope for the best, but ?rocky' would maybe be a one-word summary,? said Vance, a captain with 25 years at the department. As with past years, Vance said, the union feels like Hays does not make public safety and city employees a priority. ?We've got areas of the city that have not even got fire coverage that have been annexed in,? he said. ?We just feel like we are trying to provide the best service for the citizens of North Little Rock that we are able to provide, and we don't feel like the mayor has put up the assets for us to be able to do that ? equipment and personnel.? There are 150 firefighters in the department, which Vance says is about the same number it had in the 1970s, when the city covered half the area it does today. Another sore spot was that, as of early June, the union was still working without a contract six months after the last one expired. ?We should've had a signed contract by Jan. 1; we have not even sat down with [Hays] at the table to talk about it,? said Vance, who noted he had ?not been afforded an opportunity to visit with the mayor? since the Lloyd endorsement. The most recent word, sent to the union via e-mail, was that their latest offer should be sent to Finance Director Bob Sisson. ?So I guess we're going through him now. I'm not sure,? said Vance. ?This has really cooked my freaking goose. And you know the mayor does not like me at all, anyway.? The ?lukewarm? relations with the mayor's office predate his term as president, Vance noted, and go back to his predecessor who filed, and won, a lawsuit demanding pay parity with Little Rock firefighters. Despite the situation, Vance said he still tries ?to be open with the mayor,? and hopes for a little parity in that arena, as well. ?Mayor Hays, the people have spoken, we understand that, we have no problem with that,? he said. ?But I hope he would be professional enough in his job that we could put this behind us and move on and make North Little Rock a better place to live, and put public safety on its place on the agenda.? ? A penchant for pet projects The TIF districts ? which include areas of Argenta (the city's historic downtown), the Baring Cross neighborhood to its west, and the swamps of Dark Hollow at the intersection of I-30 and I-40 ? have become one of the flashpoints of Hays' recent tenure. TIF supporters (including Hays, other council members, and developers) like them because they divert a portion of property tax revenues over a period of 20 years or more to pay for some aspects of development, like utility relocation and site preparation. Opponents (including public school officials and their supporters) decry that loss of revenue for education, and claim many TIF districts fail to address existing blight, which had been one of the claims made by proponents when the state's TIF law was under consideration. The current legal tussle between city and schools centers on a Dec. 31, 2008, meeting the City Council held to pass last-minute legislation that would create a TIF district to capture the increase in taxable property value ? the tax increment, totaling about $84,000 ? for the upscale Enclave condominiums before the county reallocated the tax revenues on Jan. 1. Critics objected because there was no TIF district when the Enclave was built and therefore any revenue generated by increased property values should go to the schools. The lawsuit claims the city failed to meet the legal requirement for giving 17 days notice before considering legislation, as well questioning whether a proper economic review was done by the state and objecting to the emergency clause that put the ordinance into effect the moment it was passed. Hays spearheaded the TIF effort over those objections, and he defends that course of action today. In fact, he has a reputation of pushing forward favored projects even when objections are aired or questions are raised, though those often get addressed later on in the process ? that ?seek forgiveness, not permission? mindset Lloyd had alluded to, though when you're the mayor you have a lot of leeway in what you can do before permission is required. Take the riverfront RV park that was constructed last year at a cost of some $200,000 to the city. The ArgentaNews.com neighborhood blog reported several times on issues related to its construction, such as how it violated the city's own zoning laws, not to mention state Department of Health regulations. Most recently, Argenta News reported on two bathroom facilities installed in the park, raising questions of whether they were ?permanent structures? (a violation of flood plain building restrictions) and whether their connection to the city's sewer system was up to code. Scott Miller, an Argenta resident and businessman who runs the blog, says he generally tries to ?stay out? of politics with the site but admits to having ?called [out] the mayor on decisions, more often than not.? ?My differences with Mayor Hays and the administration of City Hall are more often than not [about] means and methods, not ends and results,? said Miller. Specifically, he feels there should be more information made available to the public on the front end about these projects. Argenta News ? and occasionally other neighborhood blogs ? have pressed the mayor to make better use of the Internet to inform his constituents of what's going on. Miller, for example, made a fair amount of fuss over the fact that Little Rock had a website detailing how its federal stimulus money would be spent, while North Little Rock had spent thousands refurbishing an office for its stimulus director but hadn't said a word about how the actual stimulus funds would be spent. Miller eventually got a copy of the spending plan and posted it on Argenta News. Miller, who has run unsuccessfully for the City Council, says he's not an out-and-out opponent of the mayor, but the status quo at City Hall needs to change. ?Make no mistake, we have a strong mayor form of government. It's a good thing and it's a bad thing,? he said. ?If you're on the inside and have the mayor's ear, it's a wonderful thing. If you're on the outside or can't get the mayor's attention, it's a bad thing because there are no alternate paths.? That brings up one piece of conventional wisdom regarding Hays: If you want something done, go to him personally. Years ago, following complaints raised by a neighborhood group, The North Little Rock Times asked Hays how residents could get a streetlight installed. The mayor's answer: ?Call me.? And therein lies another piece of Hays conventional wisdom: He doesn't like surprises. If you need something he can provide, he'd much rather you brought it to him than to the appropriate city department ? or, for that matter, the City Council. North Little Rock Times reporters covering council meetings frequently noted how Hays would frown when a resident stepped to the podium with a complaint the mayor had not heard about before. At such times, if he didn't immediately direct the appropriate department head to take care of it, Hays frequently invited the speaker to visit him in his office the next day so it could be sorted out. The mayor acknowledged that it's true he prefers to handle things personally, and framed it as a matter of efficiency. ?To me, why wait two weeks [to bring something before the council] when I could deal with a problem in two hours?? he said. ?We deal with that every day.? Hays noted that some people bring issues to the council at the suggestion of their alderman, ?and that's fine,? but the mayor suspects some of those who opt for a council airing of their grievance have ulterior motives. ?Obviously, there's some feeling there's more motive to get that in front of the public and get it resolved,? he said. ?Another thing, too: When I'm hit cold with a problem like that, I don't have any information to deal with the problem.? However, Hays hastened to add, he wasn't implying that there would ever come a time that a resident would not be allowed to bring their issues to the council meeting and have them heard. ?If someone's interested in the opportunity to have an audience,? he said, ?that's there, too.? ? Going for lucky No. Seven? Over the years, as Hays approached, then surpassed, William F. ?Casey? Laman's record for years as mayor, people began asking earlier and earlier whether he would seek another term. Sitting in his City Hall office just months after his most recent re-election, Hays laughed when the question was put to him regarding a seventh. ?You never make a lame duck out of yourself,? he said, smiling. ?Who knows? Maybe.? So, in the event Hays does decide to seek another term, what advice would Lloyd offer future challengers? ?Start earlier; get your name out there,? said Lloyd, adding own name recognition was just 2 percent when the race began. ?Put yourself in a position to be competitive monetarily. And talk about his record.? And does Lloyd think Hays will run again? That depends. ?I suspect if he doesn't feel a strong challenge coming on, he'll run,? said Lloyd. ?He's not going to get a better gig than he's got now.? ? Eric Francis covered North Little Rock for more than 11 years at The North Little Rock Times. He is now a freelance journalist living in Argenta. Population ? and cost ? explosionhttp://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=b55c83fa-9fb1-4e92-8dc3-c8e654bbf906Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:00:00 GMTarktimes@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Staff)Population ? and cost ? explosion Arkansas Correction Department <div style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: black 12pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in"> ??????????????????????????????????? 1980????????? 1990????????? 2000??????? 2015 (est.) </div> ?Ave. population???? 2,850???????? 6,614??????? 11,984??????? 17,579 ?Budget?????????????????? $13 mil.???? $54 mil.????? $81 mil.?????????? ?