Pubdate: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
Source: Northwest Arkansas Times (AR)
Copyright: 2001 Community Publishers Inc.
Contact:  212 N. East Ave., P.O. Box 1607 Fayetteville, AR 72702
Website: http://www.nwarktimes.com

FUNDING THE "FIGHTING FOURTH"

Go figure.

The top cops in the 4th Judicial District Drug Task Force are in a 
quibble with Prosecutor Terry Jones over forfeiture monies -- one of 
the most controversial law enforcement elements in the changing 
debate over Arkansas' war on drugs.

Members of the "Fighting Fourth" are displeased that Jones is paying 
an outside attorney to handle forfeiture cases, a court procedure 
outside the criminal realm that requires a civil judgment before the 
task force can keep money and property from those convicted of drug 
offenses.

A law changing forfeiture methods went into effect about six months 
ago in an attempt to end abuses in other parts of the state, where 
officials were confiscating drug money and virtually trading it for 
light or nonexistent sentences.

Instead of charging one of his overworked deputies to handle the 
civil forfeiture cases, Jones has hired Fayetteville lawyer Steve 
Gunderson to handle the caseload. He pays Gunderson a contingency fee 
from the seized money and property to settle the civil matters or 
take them to court.

Some members of the task force, however, question whether Jones 
should pay Gunderson the additional fee from the confiscated money. 
Jones' office already takes 10 percent of the confiscated money, a 
percentage he established in accordance with his new responsibility 
of overseeing the money. Task force members point out that in other 
judicial districts in Arkansas, attorneys within the prosecutor's 
office litigate forfeitures.

In addition to the financial concerns, another danger could exist if 
Jones assigned forfeitures to a full-time prosecutor in his office. 
As it stands now, deputy prosecutors pursue their cases strictly from 
a criminal punishment perspective, and muddying the waters with deals 
over money and property would return us to the very situation the 
amended forfeiture laws were designed to address.

Forfeiture monies are a sensitive issue in today's criminal justice 
world. On the one hand, the money taken in drug cases helps fund 
needed anti-drug efforts by law enforcement, but they can also become 
an incentive for officials to focus too much on money when the goal 
should center on reducing illegal drug activity.

Smaller cities such as Greenland, Johnson and West Fork are even 
considering dropping out of the task force because the forfeiture 
dollars they are receiving are falling short of the $1,800 a year 
they pay to the task force. Their allocation pays for an 
officer-at-large, who acts as the task force's drug officer for all 
seven of the hamlets surrounding Springdale and Fayetteville.

One of the small-town police chiefs even went so far as to say, "If 
I'm not getting forfeiture funds back, it's not worth it." The chief 
was referring to the challenge he'll face when he returns to his city 
council for task force funding next year.

City councils naturally have to look out for their budgets, but it's 
scary that concentrated enforcement of drug laws might hinge on the 
profit margin those efforts return.

Financial needs will remain an undercurrent for the task force, and 
it's fortunate we haven't had the problems experienced in other parts 
of the state. But until authorities in higher places help redefine 
the War on Drugs, the local task force needs to strive to keep 
enforcement -- not cash -- at the forefront of their mission.

To clear things up...

A poor choice of words -- which is an unfortunate but common sin 
among writers -- may have misled some readers in our Sunday editorial 
regarding unity and Mayor Dan Coody.

It stated "change ... wasn't under Coody's scope of authority, or the 
council's for that matter," in reference to the selection of Kit 
Williams over LaGayle McCarty to by Fayetteville's city attorney last 
month.

Some may have interpreted "scope of authority" to refer to the legal 
responsibility to select a city attorney. We realize it was the 
council's legal obligation to select a city attorney, but our intent 
was to point out that a "change" in this instance was not one of the 
mandates voters sought when they elected the council or the mayor. At 
that point, electors didn't even know a new city attorney would be 
needed.

None of the public's votes were cast based on which faction would 
pick the next city attorney, so it would have been preferable to let 
those attorneys favored by the divided members of the City Council 
vie for the seat at the next election. We maintain that McCarty -- 
who was hand-picked by our departing city attorney to take over his 
elected post -- would have been the proper choice in the interest of 
unity.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Kirk Bauer