A bizarre story out of Arkansas, where new Chief Justice Karen Baker decided that one of her first official acts would be to fire ten court employees, most of them senior administrators. On Thursday, January 2, one day after being sworn in, Baker apparently confronted Supreme Court Chief of Police Pete Hollingsworth and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Marty Sullivan, and announced that she was planning to fire them. Baker later prepared termination letters for Hollingsworth, Sullivan, and eight other senior court officials. But Sullivan refused to accept the termination, and things got interesting.
On Friday Sullivan sent a letter to the new Chief Justice accusing her of “retaliation and intimidation” and calling her attempt to terminate AOC staff “reprehensible.” Sullivan also issued a personal press release arguing that “no individual Justice has the authority” to terminate AOC personnel.
Sullivan did not mention the specific reason for the alleged retaliation, but the local media reported on a strange incident last month. In early December, Baker apparently entered Sullivan’s locked office at the courthouse while he was away and without his permission. Video footage of the incident made its way to the press through a FOIA request, prompting Baker to send an aggravated voice mail to Hollingsworth stating that she did not want the video “going around.” Baker denied any wrongdoing, but apparently told Hollingsworth and Sullivan that their responses to the FOIA requests formed the basis for their termination.
At this point the rest of the state supreme court stepped in. On Friday five of the seven justices issued an administrative order rescinding any attempt to terminate the employees and clarifying that AOC employees can only be terminated by a majority of the court and after following specific procedures. The five justices also thoroughly chastised Baker:
The Chief Justice did not notify–let alone consult–the court before attempting to unilaterally fire these long-tenured court employees. After learning of the attempt to terminate these employees, a fellow Justice asked the Chief Justice to meet with the other members of the court to discuss her decisions. The Chief Justice refused. Four members of the court then renewed the request the discuss the alleged terminations, and the Chief Justice again declined. Yet when asked why these ten employees were being terminated, the Chief Justice stated that she had “millions of reasons.” Then, when asked about those employees’ families and the fact that they were scared and fearful, the Chief Justice responded by saying that it was “good” for those employees to be scared. The Chief Justice then ended the discussion.
…
This situation is unnecessary and unfortunate. The court thanks the employees targeted for termination for their service and offers its sincere apologies to their families for the situation.
Chief Justice Baker’s elected term runs through December 31, 2032. Even after the court majority undid the immediate damage and apologized, how many court administrators will be looking for opportunities elsewhere? And who could blame them?
The Interdependent Third Branch 