On Friday, September 8, 2023, Governor Sarah Sanders announced that a would begin at the Arkansas Capitol on Monday, September 11. In her announcement of the special session, the Governor hinted at potential amendments to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AFOIA). She specifically mentioned a desire to protect “internal deliberations within the executive branch” from public scrutiny, citing concerns for both her personal safety and that of her family. These concerns stemmed from that arose during her gubernatorial campaign and afterwards.

Following the Governor’s announcement, and were filed in the Arkansas Legislature. Both bills had several objectives, including the limitation of public access to records related to the security of the executive branch; this encompasses communications, processes, and travel arrangements, retroactively to January 2022.Ěý

The bills also sought to restrict access to any documents, communications, or other forms of deliberative processes of Arkansas state agencies, boards, or commissions, including records associated with contract bids and discussions, attorney-client privilege, and legal strategy, especially during periods when the state is facing legal action.

From a cursory read of both bills, it was clear that there was substantial reliance on , a carve-out to the Federal-level FOIA that allows the federal government to withhold documents and records related to internal deliberations that occur before any final administrative decision is made.Ěý

It is essential for Arkansas residents to understand that Exemption 5 in the Federal FOIA has been cited as the reason for denying the release of federal interagency deliberative documents on more than between FY 2008 and FY 2022. It is this same exemption that Governor Sanders proposed to narrow the scope of AFOIA.Ěý

At the start of the session on Monday, September 11, there was growing concern that those two bills were undermining the AFOIA. As of today, Tuesday, September 12, two new bills, and , have been introduced.Ěý

A quick review of these two new bills shows that the “deliberative exemption privilege,” has been removed, which is a positive development. However, some provisions of the two new bills, like the one involving “Records reflecting communications between the Governor or his or her staff and the secretary of a cabinet-level department,” will still be exempt.Ěý

Moreover, Section 4, Paragraph (30), requires a credible threat of litigation for attorney-client exemption, while Section 4, Paragraph (31), states that all “502(b)” material is exempt even without a threat of litigation.Ěý

Invariably, these new bills may still pose challenges for the public in accessing certain information.

Without doubt and without reservation, Arkansans should be able to protect themselves and their families from physical harm and deprivation. However, the language proposed within the amendment to the AFOIA law would create unintended negative consequences. Some of these could include shielding the conduct of corrupt or inefficient government actors from public view and hiding embarrassing or otherwise unsightly internal deliberations about policy priorities. It is important to remember that any proposed legislation will become permanent and needs to be carefully considered and vetted to assuage any concerns about unintended consequences moving forward.

Ěý

What should residents know about the current Arkansas Freedom of Information Act?

The current AFOIA has been praised by many, including Eliza Gaines, publisher of WEHCO Media Inc., the parent company of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. She said that AFOIA “” Likewise, Assistant Senate President Pro Tempore, Clarke Tucker [D-Little Rock], praised Arkansas’s FOIA as “.” Also, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin echoed this sentiment on the Arkansas , where it’s noted that the AFOIA is considered one of the most comprehensive and robust frameworks for open-records and open-meetings laws in the United States.

What are the key elements that contribute to the praise of the AFOIA?

1. Presumption of Open Records: This means that unless specific exemptions apply, all government records are considered open to the public, thereby promoting transparency.

Ěý

1. Presumption of Open Meetings: This also means that unless specific exemptions apply, AFOIA provides for transparency in government proceedings by requiring that meetings conducted by government bodies touching on public business are open to the public, allowing citizens to observe and participate in the democratic process.

Ěý

These aspects of the current AFOIA are its notable strengths. Hence, consistent court rulings in Arkansas have reinforced the public’s right to access government records and public meetings, contributing to a culture of transparency.

Ěý

How is Arkansas performing in terms of transparency at both the state and local levels?

Despite the past praise from members of the Arkansas press and the state legislature, there is still much work to be done to achieve government transparency in practice.

In the Sunshine Review’sĚý 2013 Transparency Report Card titled “,” Kristin McMurray wrote that a review was conducted to evaluate the online transparency of various levels of government across the United States. The findings showed that Arkansas received an overall grade of C- in online transparency, with the state government earning the best score of any level of government (B), while its cities, school districts, and county governments received grades of C, C-, and F, respectively. Notably, Arkansas’s counties were ranked as the least transparent among all the counties in the country at the time.Ěý

Moving forward to 2015, the Center for Public Integrity produced the , which ranked Arkansas as the 32nd-most transparent state in the nation. This report utilized a mixed-method cross-disciplinary approach to measure the extent to which each state fulfilled its commitment to providing transparent and accountable governance to its residents. States were evaluated across various categories of transparency and accountability, including the strength of their public records laws such as FOIA. In this regard, Arkansas in State Integrity Investigation, with one of the contributing factors being our open records law. In the report, the authors noted that while Arkansas did offer robust overall protections for disclosing records, it also had various exceptions and gaps that obstructed the release of certain records.

The report highlighted that some states may have robust general protections for record release but simultaneously, countless exemptions and loopholes that impede such record releases, thereby impacting their overall ranking.

Although there haven’t been any updated editions of these reports since 2013 and 2015, they continue to provide a valuable foundation for evaluating Arkansas’s present transparency performance.

Ěý It’s also crucial to acknowledge that substantial improvements have been made since 2015. Regarding state-level transparency, AFOIA laws have been periodically updated and revised to address evolving challenges. For instance, during the past legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly enacted . It mandates that public records custodians must respond to FOIA requests in time if no responsive records exist or if exemptions apply, and they must identify the relevant exemptions. Additionally, the Act allows that responses could be delivered via email.

Also, Arkansas maintains a designed to offer easy access to government spending data, contracts, and other essential information, which should improve public access to government activities. While the state’s transparency website has not seen extensive use, it still reflects a commitment to keeping the Sunshine Laws relevant.Ěý

In the “,” authors Rachel J. Cross, Michelle Surka, and Scott Welder categorized state transparency websites. Arkansas was placed in the second tier, known as “Advancing states.” It earned this ranking because its transparency website provides easy access to state spending, which can be downloaded and searched by recipient, keyword, and agency. The “advancing states” ranking is attributed to states that have less spending data available to the public than “leading states,” which hold the first place ranking in the Report.Ěý

When compared to its neighboring states, Arkansas’s transparency website outperformed those of Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Each of those neighboring states received either a D or a D- for their promotion of web-based fiscal transparency. Among the neighboring states, only Louisiana received a higher grade (A-) for its fiscal transparency website, surpassing Arkansas’s B- grade.

At the local government level, the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) conducts research to assess local government web transparency and publishes the Access Arkansas: County and City Web Transparency Report. This report focuses on Arkansas’s 75 counties and 112 first-class cities (cities that at the last federal census have a population exceeding 2,500 people), ranking them based on fiscal, administrative, and political web transparency.

Key findings from the Report related to AFOIA at the local government level reveal that the situation is bleak. Only a few counties (10 out of 75) and first-class cities (23 out of 112) publish online information on how residents can make FOIA requests. Similarly, a significant number of counties (35 out of 75) and first-class cities (35 out of 112) lack online accessibility for procurement information, such as government contract bids and winners.Ěý

On political transparency, while officials’ names (97%), office phone numbers (97%), and email addresses (91%) are commonly available, there’s a glaring absence (0%) of financial disclosure and conflict of interest statements available online from counties.

Also, regarding information on meetings like quorum courts which is vital for public participation and scrutiny, not so many counties (only 33 out of 75) and first-class cities (just 51 out of 112) adequately publish such information. Regarding quorum court records, only 44 percent publish times and locations of public meetings, while only 12 percent of Arkansas counties publish archived videos. While we at ACRE do not know the intent of this discrepancy, it is reasonable to say that once a meeting of the Quorum Court adjourns, the conversation and decisions in that court will be lost to history in the absence of such items being made public.Ěý

At the state transparency level, ACRE has conducted limited research on AFOIA. This is because AFOIA laws have been periodically updated and revised to address evolving challenges. As a result, ACRE’s focus over the years has been on researching the expansion of AFOIA to include web transparency at the state level. However, Governor Sanders’ proposed amendments would significantly roll back the progress made in the area of AFOIA concerning state government records. This move could set a precedent for local governments to follow, undermining ongoing local transparency efforts.

What would be the impact of adopting the Governor’s proposed amendments to AFOIA? We will address that in more detail in Part 2 of this blog post, coming soon.

Ěý

Dr.Joyce Ajayi and Mr. Joseph Johns are policy analysts at the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Central Arkansas.

According to the Pew Research Center article, “,” published on June 6, 2022, only two in ten Americans trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always.”Ěý The seemingly good news for state governments is that people trust their state and local governments more than the federal government says authors John O’Leary, Angella Welle, and Sushumna Agarwal, in another article “,” published by Deloitte on September 22, 2021.Ěý

Transparency is a crucial ingredient in ensuring that people trust their government. As stewards of public resources, public officials are expected to be transparent on how they use public resources, whether from federal, state, or local government sources. That is the point Joyce Ajayi makes in her op-ed “.” Ěý In the op-ed published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on September 24, Joyce Ajayi explains that Arkansas has received over $8 billion in COVID-19 relief funds from a combination of funding portfolios from several federal laws passed to address the pandemic. The $8 billion is equivalent to writing a check of over $2,600 to every Arkansan.Ěý

Ajayi questions how transparent Arkansas has been with COVID-19 funds. Such questions and concerns are not in a vacuum. Research conducted by the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) scholars reveals that some states have been transparent with COVID-19 funds providing their residents with detailed information on how these funds were spent. Joyce Ajayi points to States such as Idaho, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee as exemplars.

How did Arkansas fare when compared to the states mentioned above? Not so well. Ajayi rightly concludes that:

“F˛ąľ±±ôľ±˛Ô˛µ to track the influx of funds weakens the efficiency of the efforts invested in the crisis response and can also result in corruption, which puts the administration of these taxpayer dollars at risk of misuse.ĚýSome portion of the COVID-19 relief funds could be lost to corruption if state and local governments do not ensure that the transparency of the entire process is maintained.”

In other words, as discussed earlier, a lack of transparency breeds distrust in the government.Ěý

So, what does Arkansas need to do to promote trust in the government? The simple answer is to emulate what states such as Idaho, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee have done and adhere to Ajayi’s recommendation to

Ěý“Utilize open data initiatives like transparency websites and other online technology to provide accountability for using the funds.”Ěý

For more on this topic, read ACRE’s research:

Coronavirus Relief Fund Reporting: How States are Promoting Transparency

COVID Relief Done Right: A Local Government Transparency Guide for Following the One-Time Influx of Funds by

By Caleb Taylor

How can local governments discourage corruption among public officials?

Create more systems that provide for checks and balances, says ACRE Policy Analyst Joyce Ajayi in “” published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on July 16.

Ajayi writes:

In his book “Principles of Fraud Examination,” Joseph Wells, the founder and chairman of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), points out that generally, employees don’t set out to be corrupt from the outset.Ěý

However, when employees experience financial pressure with weak organizational controls or rules, it is easy for them to develop rationalizations for fraud.”

Ajayi cites the case of April Michelle Poor, a Marvell-Elaine School District bookkeeper, who embezzled $471,665 from the district as an example of these “weak organizational controls.”

Ajayi writes:

Her embezzlement caused teacher and counselor layoffs and nearly shut down the district. Interestingly, some community members described Poor as a good lady who volunteered in the community and sang in the choir. She was the last person in their small community anyone believed would commit fraud.Ěý

Yet Poor committed fraud by issuing 92 checks to herself from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. She hid the payments in the district’s accounting system by making false entries indicating she used them to pay utilities, and altering bank statements.”

Ajayi recommends improving “transparency and adhering to generally accepted accounting principles” as a means of stopping corruption.

Ajayi writes:

To prevent corruption, governments should create more systems that provide for checks and balances. When public officers are aware that their actions are being watched closely, it will undoubtedly improve their behavior.”

For more of our research on transparency, go here.

How can Arkansas counties improve their political transparency?

In their latest research, “Arkansas Policy Recommendations: Political Transparency,” ACRE Policy Analysts Joyce Ajayi and Dr. Mavuto Kalulu discuss how county elected officials can improve the transparency of their quorum court meetings.

Ajayi and Kalulu begin by noting that some Arkansas counties still don’t publish the time and place of their quorum court meetings online.

Ajayi and Kalulu write:

• Every county should publish its quorum court meeting notices, agendas, and minutes online.
• Every county should publish this information on its own website and/or through a public-facing platform such as Facebook or Arkansas.gov.
• Videos of quorum court meetings should be published on the county website or on a public-facing platform such as Facebook or YouTube.
• Where resources allow, videos should be livestreamed so Arkansans who cannot attend in person are able to watch in real time.

You can read the full report here.

You can read the entire third edition of “Access Arkansas: County Web Transparency” by Ajayi and Kalulu here.

For more of our research on transparency, go here.

By Caleb Taylor

How can Arkansas counties and school districts improve their procurement transparency?

In their latest research, “Arkansas Policy Recommendations: Procurement Transparency,” ACRE Policy Analysts Joyce Ajayi and Dr. Mavuto Kalulu discuss how counties and school districts can improve the web transparency of their finances.

Ajayi and Kalulu begin by noting that “Arkansas has no law that requires school districts and counties to publish bids and bid outcomes online.”

Ajayi and Kalulu write:

In addition, these entities are not required to maintain an online archive for residents to see the bidders, bid winners, and bid amounts. This lack of transparency may encourage corruption.”

Legislators should pass a law requiring Arkansas counties and school districts to post more procurement information online, according to Ajayi and Kalulu.

Ajayi and Kalulu recommend the following procurement information be posted online:

• Current requests for proposals (RFPs)
• Archived RFPs
• Current bidders
• Archived bidders
• Current bid amounts, or at least the range of the bid amounts
• Archived bid amounts, or at least the range of the bid amounts
• Current bid winners
• Archived bid winners
• Current winning bid amounts
• Archived winning bid amounts

You can read the rest of the report here.

You can read the entire third edition of “Access Arkansas: County Web Transparency” by Ajayi and Kalulu here.

For more of our research on transparency, go here.

How many county governments publish the salaries of their elected officials?Ěý

In their latest research, “Elected Officials’ Salaries Transparency,” ACRE Policy Analysts Joyce Ajayi and Dr. Mavuto Kalulu discuss this and ways county governments can improve their online transparency.

Ajayi and Kalulu begin by noting that only two counties in Arkansas publish elected officials’ salaries online.Ěý

According to Ajayi and Kalulu, improving elected officials’ salaries transparency could help prevent incidents like the 2020 arrest for theft of taxpayer funds by Craighead County Clerk Kade Holliday.

Ajayi and Kalulu write:

County governments should publish elected officials’ salaries online, and include officials’ names, not just job titles.Ěý

The Association of Arkansas Counties (AAC) publishes a County Government Salary Survey that shows the salaries of elected officials at https://www.arcounties.org/site/assets/files/5579/2020_sal-ary_survey_complete.pdf. If counties cannot directly publish the salaries on their websites, they should link to the AAC salary survey so that citizens can easily access the data. The AAC survey should be augmented with public officials’ names, not just salaries by job title.”

You can read the rest of the report here.

You can read the entire third edition of “Access Arkansas: County Web Transparency” by Ajayi and Kalulu here.

For more of our research on transparency, go here.

By Caleb Taylor

Should local public officials be able to meet in secret to discuss economic development projects?

sponsored by State Rep. Delia Haak R-District 91 and State Sen. Lance Eads R-District 7 would amend Arkansas’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to allow for an executive session to be called by local government officials to discuss economic development projects.Ěý

Executive sessions are closed to the public and these discussions aren’t subject to FOIA requests. Currently, local governments can only call an executive session for discussions related to employment, demotion, promotion, appointment, disciplining or resignation of public officers or employees.

During a meeting of the Senate City, County and Local Affairs committee on April 8th, Eads said the “bill allows cities and counties to go into an executive session to discuss an economic development project” and “specifically defines what that means and what types of things they can talk about.”

Eads said:

This would provide an exemption within the executive session from FOIA so that they would have the ability to discuss where they’re at in the process to make sure they have the best opportunity to be successful while at the same time not give out any vulnerable information by creating undue competition with information they don’t want to share with anyone else at that point in the process.”

ACRE Economic Policy Analyst Dr. Mavuto Kalulu said the bill would “erode” Arkansas’s FOIA that’s widely considered to be one of the best in the nation.

Kalulu said:

The bill restricts government transparency. In general, transparency is beneficial to both the government and for their citizens.There’s academic evidence that shows that economic development incentives are not as effective as they’re advertised hence the need for transparency. We’re pumping public money into economic development incentives that aren’t very effective. That’s why we need to be more transparent in the way we’re going about these deals.”Ěý

Kalulu is a co-author of “Access Arkansas: County Web Transparency” with ACRE Policy Analyst Joyce Ajayi.

You can watch Kalulu’s full testimony (begins at 10:34:23 a.m.)

The bill failed to pass for a lack of a motion to pass. Previously, the bill .

For more of our research on targeted incentives, go here. For more of our research on transparency, go here.

By Mavuto Kalulu

Kudos to the Faulkner County Quorum Court, the legislative body of Faulkner County government.

Before the pandemic, on August 21, 2018, it enacted Ordinance 18-16 to enhance the transparency of its public meetings by posting recordings on the county website. This allows citizens to listen or watch what transpired in the quorum court. This has had important implications, especially with the unexpected events of the past year.

were physically present at the last regular quorum court meeting of 2020, held on December 15. Of the 13 Justices of the Peace who make up the court, only two were physically present. The small number was due largely to the COVID-19 pandemic. People are wary of catching or spreading the virus, even for important county business.

Three years ago, this level of participation would have been worrisome, because it would have meant roughly of Faulkner’s adult population (roughly 96,000) witnessed quorum court deliberations. But thanks to the commitment of elected officials to be more transparent with their deliberations and outcomes through the use of web technology, we no longer have to worry about that.

Thus, even though one did not attend the last quorum court meeting of 2020 in person, one can know that the quorum court passed to amend the 2020 operating budget, which was previously established by in December 2019. The amendment passed unanimously, with all 13 Justices of the Peace voting in favor of the amendment. I know this because I watched the video recording of this meeting at my own convenience.

A look at the ordinance itself, which is also published on the Faulkner County website, shows the 12 amendments that were made. For example, a sum of $10,000 was set aside from the County General Fund to the Election Commission for postage ($7,000) and other professional services ($3,000).

Web technology increases residents’ participation, allowing residents to contribute to these important discussions. It also provides oversight for elected officials. Knowing that their deliberations are being scrutinized by residents, elected officials are more likely to act in our interests. This leads to the prudent allocation of resources.

A 2017 “Public Administration Review” research article by Maria Cucciniello, Gregory Porumbescu, and Stephen Grimmelikhuijsen, “” reveals that besides increasing participation, transparency improves financial management and reduces corruption.

The foresight of our elected officials to live stream and record these meetings has allowed residents to stay informed when other counties in the state are lagging behind.

According to an Arkansas Center for Research in Economics transparency report, Faulkner County is one of the nine counties that post recorded videos of court meetings. Overall, Faulkner’s transparency has improved from 2018 to 2020. In 2018, the County published about 37 percent of its important public information online. In 2020, it published almost double that, at 68 percent.

I applaud the progress Faulkner County public officials have made and encourage them to continue improving transparency so we have access to the remaining 32 percent of public information. Faulkner County residents deserve to be informed, and the technology is there to ensure that they do.

By Joyce Ajayi

A popular adage says, “Many hands make light work.”

This means things are done quickly and efficiently when people work together. Transparency is a way to get more hands to lighten the work of making government accountable. Transparent governance creates platforms and initiatives for sharing information freely and openly. Many sets of eyes on government activity exposes both corruption and inefficiency. This benefits all citizens.Ěý

The idea is easy enough. Governments provide a website posting all the requisite financial, administrative, and political information online. The easily accessible website involves residents, in all local government processes and raises civic engagement. In the article “Key determinants of online fiscal transparency: A technology-organization-environment framework.” published in 2019 by the Public Performance and Management Review, authors Chen Gang, Hyewon Kang, and Luis F. Luna-Reyes explain that simple acts like publishing governments’ expenditures on an approved website can improve transparency in governmental operations. This kind of openness in government is also positively related to a citizen’s trust in government. Openness increases public trust.Ěý However, for openness to happen, it will require a collective effort from residents and public officials.

Faulkner County is a great example of a county making efforts to improve transparency. The Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE)’s annual Online County Web Transparency Index tracks county transparency in Arkansas. That index shows Faulkner County continuing to improve transparency. In the inaugural report published in 2018, Faulkner County scored 0.365 on a scale of 0 to 1. This means that Faulkner County published close to 37 percent of the important public information the ACRE index tracks.Ěý In the 2019 report, Faulkner County improved by publishing close to 60 percent of this information. Results from the 2020 report also show that Faulkner improved its transparency standing again. Why has Faulkner County continued to make progress in transparency while some other counties are struggling? Some residents, grassroots groups, and Justices of the Peace in the county work in favor of improving transparency and accountability. The county has made laudable progress.

On Friday, October 20 2020, the Quorum Court of Faulkner County passed into law the County Board Transparency Report Ordinance, sponsored by Kris Kendrick, Justice of the Peace (Dist. 9). The ordinance increases transparency by mandating that all county boards publish their reports online. County boards oversee critical services like law enforcement, election-related activities, firefighting, parks, libraries, ambulances, trash pickup, sewers, and water among other things. Counties are important. Providing easy access to information on county processes is good practice for transparency and accountability.

Now, boards like the Election Commission Board, Lake Conway Community Wastewater Utility Board, Public Facilities Board, Library Board, and the Volunteer Fire Department Board will make vital information easily accessible online to residents. Residents can also have easy access to information like board activities, the board’s purpose, the applicable ordinance governing each board, and names, phone numbers, emails, and contact addresses of all board members. This kind of openness in county government makes it easy for residents to know their county officials, direct questions to them, and hold them accountable.

This is not the first time Faulkner County has passed ordinances to improve transparency. In 2018, the Faulkner Quorum court passed, (amended in 2019 by), a law protecting the transparency of public meetings by mandating the quorum court to post recordings of its meetings on the county website. The county also passed, mandating open and transparent bidding and contracting process, and , mandating an open and transparent financial and spending system of county operations. Both laws give residents access to information on how their county government conducts business and spends their tax dollars. These laws were sponsored by Kris Kendrick, Justice of the Peace (District. 9), and the Courts and Public Safety Committee respectively. ACRE Policy Analyst Dr. Mavuto Kalulu testified in support of .Ěý

Transparency in itself is not an end; it is the means to the end, which is accountability.Ěý We commend Faulkner County’s public officials for their conscientious efforts to be more transparent and accessible to residents every year. We also celebrate residents and grassroots groups that raise awareness about transparency issues and help officials become more accountable. More residents should get involved in the process for better governance.

By Caleb Taylor

ACRE Policy Analysts Joyce Ajayi and Dr. Mavuto Kalulu spoke to the Faulkner County Tea Party on March 5 about their latest research on online transparency in Faulkner County and other county governments in Arkansas.

Faulkner County climbed from the 8th most online-transparent county in 2018 to 6th in 2019. This comes from the second annual Online Transparency Index from the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics, co-authored by Kalulu and Ajayi, released in December.

Ajayi said:

We want to incentivize counties that are doing well to do better. We want to incentivize counties that aren’t doing anything at all to follow best practices from other counties.”Ěý

Overall, Arkansas counties improved their online transparency since the inaugural index was released in 2018. In 2018, four counties published at least 50 percent of the important public information included in our index. In 2019, eight counties do.

Kalulu said:

We’ve noticed some change. It’s not a big change as we might’ve hoped for, but we understand that this is a process that will take time.”

Why are these findings important?

Transparency in government tends to reduce corruption, instills fiscal responsibility and improve the relationship between government and its residents.

Ajayi said:

Transparency is not the end…it’s the means to the end. We want officials to be accountable. We want to improve economic performance. If there’s no transparency, there’s no way to achieve all of this.”Ěý

Interested in how your county’s online transparency ranks compared to the rest of the state? You can find out here.Ěý

To learn about a recent law that will make county governments in Arkansas more transparent, check out ACRE Policy Analyst Dr. Mavuto Kalulu discussing the benefits of in an op-ed “,” published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on December 27, 2019.

To find out what one law that went into effect in 2020 will make county governments in Arkansas more transparent check out ACRE Policy Analyst Dr. Mavuto Kalulu discussing the benefits of in an op-ed “,” published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on December 27, 2019.

For more of our research on transparency, go here.