Arkansas Blog

Are the bread crumbs in the last note?

I will note that in 1984, one of my predecessors issued a brief opinion concluding that only DF&A could issue mineral leases in which the state has an interest, and only then based on competitive bidding. I do not know whether the 1984 request, which was made by the then Director of DF&A, involved a pending dispute or what elements of the law then in effect remain so.

Just got off the phone with AGFC's Deputy Director Loren Hitchcock. I asked him by what authority AFGC could lease this land. First he told me about amendment 35 and then when I asked if the land was the property of Arkansans, he told me that the AGFC "owned" this land. I then asked, could you sell it to China if you wanted to. He answered "No." I said why not, and he didn't give an answer. I told him I wanted to ask a hypothetical question. I said, "If the 7 directors decided they wanted to burn this land to the ground, could they?" He said he wouldn't answer such a question. I said, it's hypothetical. He said that he would personally try to stop them (or something to that effect). I asked, "If licensing this land to Chesapeake is, in my mind, equitable to burning the land to the ground-- HOW CAN I STOP THEM? He said I could write a letter to Governor Beebe. Poor me, I've already sat down with Mike Beebe on more than one occasion and I have learned that reason with regard to natural process is beyond his mental capacity. So what is a body to do? I sure wish I could work for myself and make a few dollars today to feed my family but somebodies got to look out for the long term. What gives?

I was just assured by AGFC Commission member Craig Campbell that part of the money from the gas companies will be used to conserve old growth timber and to expand Wild Life Protection Areas. I told him that I'm not sure I want AGFC in charge of more land if this is how they plan to use it. I'm searching for a proper metaphor but I'm coming up empty. The golden rule is kicking my ass. He who has the gold makes the rules.

>>constitutionally independent agencies...<<

If "constitutionally independent agencies" are permitted to buy, sell, or lease assets and collect revenue without check or balance from the ledge, the gov, or the courts, does that not undercut "the people rule" slogan within the government itself. That is a slightly different version of the problem created by "dedicated taxes." It is bad enough to see state governments abjectly responding to the demands and expectations of corporations they chartered to serve the people; it is worse to have "independent agencies" of government with independent funding serving their own interests and ignoring citizens who are not "their" constituency.

Whatever get's Dustin's name in the paper...

Snapback and Rod how if it's not a constitutional agency then why is it allowed to operate?
I think it should be nulled and made void.
I don't believe the constitution allows for independant agencies. It sure would be good to get rid of them.