Cbrockett | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Member since Jul 17, 2010

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Drink up

This is great news.

Posted by Cbrockett on 11/02/2010 at 8:38 PM

Re: “GOP candidate challenged

Bw, you have me at a disadvantage since I use my real name to post comments. I do know the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, and both can be serious crimes, which is what I stated above. I have also reviewed the Judgment that was filed in Federal Court, and it states Mr Fite PLEAD guilty to the crime. Honestly it doesn't matter whether he was found guilty by the Court, a jury of his peers, or if he plead or entered into an agreement. He has a serious crime that prevents Jim from seeking an office in the General Assembly as provided in Arkansas' Constitution.

Have a wonderful weekend.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Cbrockett on 10/22/2010 at 9:13 PM

Re: “GOP candidate challenged

Bw, you should do your on research before you start making wild accusations about any candidate or their campaign. I do not know about your allegations about Mr. Wolf previous activities, but he is not attempting to represent District 83 in Little Rock. Tom Fite pleas guilty to a serious crime and based on what he has said in the papers he refuses to take responsibility for his actions. You have no evidence that Post's campaign had anything to do with bringing Tom Fite's previous criminal activity to the attention of the voting public. In addition, Post is running on local issues which are directly related to what can be decided in Little Rock, where Fite's issues are Federal and only Congress can decide those issues. Perhaps you should go back and review the issues and determine which candidate will actually represent Distict 83's interests in Little Rock.

Posted by Cbrockett on 10/22/2010 at 8:35 AM

Re: “Beebe: Count the cars

Any Mouse,

State law requires that comparison and that is part of our lawsuit, that the comparison has not been done. In 2008-2009, the DHS paid out $12.2M in reimbursements to its employees, but the DHS also has 700 vehciles assigned it. In other words even with the 700 vehicles allocated to it, DHS employees still utilized their personal vehciles to drive almost 28M miles for business use in one year.

Posted by Cbrockett on 08/06/2010 at 5:53 PM

Re: “Challenge filed on freebie cars

Would you clarify which parts you do not agree with in my comments.

You are correct that the elected officials are not specifically mentioned in the statute; however, the statute governs all state owned vehicles. Therefore the elected officials using state owned vehicles are not exempt from being required to reimburse the state for the personal use of the vehicle. No one is entitled to free use of taxpayer owned property for their own personal use. Of course the final decision on this matter will be determined by the Court.


Posted by Cbrockett on 07/18/2010 at 12:26 AM

Re: “Challenge filed on freebie cars

Dear Readers,

As one of the attorneys that filed this matter, I would like to provide you information and to respond to a few of the comments.

This lawsuit is seeking to recover from each elected official (in his or her individual capacity and not in their official capacity) directors and managers of state agencies or departments and current and former employees of the state for the personal use of the state owned vehicle. Types of personal use that we have evidence of, is state employees use state owned vehicles to commute to and from work and in extreme cases (land commissioner Wilcox) they have kept a state owned vehicle at their farm to use for ONLY personal use. State law provides that state owned vehicles should only be used for official state business; however, if an employee uses a state owned vehicle for personal use the employee must reimburse the state for the cost of this personal use. In essence our clients will be stepping into the shoes of the State of Arlansas and requiring these individuals to reimburse the state for the personal use of each state owned vehicle. The individual will be responsible for repaying the state. We have brought this lawsuit to recover your money that you have paid to the state that is currently being utilized by certain elected officials and employees by using state owned vehicles for their personal use by commuting to and from their residence to their work location. Any many cases this commute is daily and in some cases only once or twice per week. Ask yourself, would you like someone to give you a car and pay your gas and maintenance on this vehicle? In many cases each of you as taxpayers are being forced to do this for elected officials and certain high level state employees.

First, let me be clear that we are not affiliated with the Arkansas GOP and this lawsuit was not filed for any type of political reason. We do not feel the legal system should be utlized as a political tool and we found the potential of Mr. Webb's comments leading toward a lawsuit that would be brought for primarily political reasons. Second, each elected official or employee will be responsible in their individual capacity to reimburse the state. The recovery is for the taxpayers and will not be paid by you to the state. Third, if a state official is utilizing a state vehicle for official business, (i.e., speaking engagement at the request of a state taxpayer), that is not personal and no reimbursement would be required. Finally, before making any additional uninformed comments, please read our complaint, press releases, or email me for additional information. We brought this suit to stop this illegal action and to recover monies on each of your behalf.


Christopher Brockett

Posted by Cbrockett on 07/17/2010 at 10:31 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation