The Grant County Quorum Court Justices of the Peace sat on the reserved rows in the courthouse Tuesday afternoon.
They were a party to a FOIA lawsuit brought by Grant County resident Brody Channell that also included County Judge Randy Pruitt and County Clerk Geral Harrison.
Channell filed the lawsuit pro se, meaning he represented himself. Grant County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jeffrey Weber represented the county although Prosecuting Attorney Teresa Howell is the county attorney.
Circuit Judges Stephen Shirron and Margaret Dobson previously recused from the case. Retired Circuit Judge Grisham Phillips Jr. of Saline County presided over the hearing.
Channell's complaint claimed that the defendants violated the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act in several ways including "the passing of the resolution passed on July 21, 2025, in relation to Clean Cloud Energy; reNRG, and solar farms."
On July 21, citizens packed the same courtroom of Tuesday's hearing to question and comment about a resolution that would allow the county to enter into an agreement to explore allowing a data mining center and solar farm in Grant County.
Channell spoke against the resolution.
Clean Cloud representatives, Raj Keswani, and Clark Bixler, attended the meeting.
After a contentious back-and-forth between Pruitt and Channell, Pruitt allowed Keswani and Bixler to speak. They were not on the agenda.
When the resolutions were read, one concerning solar panels passed but the Justices of the Peace stopped when the resolution about the data mining center was read. Keswani said Clean Cloud had no connection to a company called reNRG. Yet, the resolution mentioned such a company.
In Channell's omplaint filed the day after the July Quorum Court meeting, he claimed "the defendants violated the rights of its citizens when they allowed Clean Cloud Energy to speak without being placed on the agenda
set forth by these sections."
At the meeting, which the Reckoning attended, Pruitt stated that he and two other Quorum Court members took a trip to Dallas to look at
different data center sites.
Channell asked the court to void the resolutions passed on July 21, "in regards to all discussions about data centers, and solar farms, an order granting a temporary and
permanent injunction from the defendants working with Clean Cloud Energy, reNRG and companies
in 'Kind' or dealings with any future data processing center, solar farm companies being constructed
in the Grant County Quorum Court's Jurisdiction."
But that didn't happen Tuesday before Judge Phillips who started the hearing by giving a brief bio of himself including explaining he had two last names, and in fact, his middle name was a last name, too. Phillips explained he was retired and heard cases across the state including one Monday in Russellville.
No cameras or audio recordings were allowed in the courtroom.
Weber, on behalf of the county, asked Phillips for dismissal almost immediately after the hearing's start but Phillips allowed both sides to present their cases briefly.
After a quick back-and-forth between Channell and Weber, Phillips said that since the Quorum Court resolution had not been signed that it had yet to cause any harm.
Weber pointed out several issues with Channell's complaint including that it could not be "mere conclusions."
With regard to the trip the Justices and County Judge took to Dallas, Weber said, "So what?"
He continued to argue that if the members and judge discussed business and even called another member of the Quorum Court on their way back to Arkansas and Texas that it did not constitute a meeting. Channell said he had a copy of text messages proving the conversation occurred, and they were filed with his complaint. The question: Did the communication on the phone between Justices of the Peace constitute a meeting?
Judge Phillips did not ask to see the text messages. It was unclear if he had read them previously in the complaint. The text messages were not read aloud during court by any party or the judge.
Here are the texts as filed as Exhibit A in Channell's complaint. The first texts are between Justice of the Peace Marilyn DeMoss and Channell.
This text is from Justice of the Peace Scott Wells to Channell.
Channell told the Reckoning after the hearing that these texts prove Justices of the Peace discussed county business that would require their votes. The texts also show how the county judge insisted people who wanted to speak at the July 21 meeting had to be placed on the agenda.
What is a meeting?
Arkansas law has not been clear in the past about how many members of a governing body is required to qualify as a meeting. However, the law has generally been interpreted to mean a meeting consists of at least two members.
Phillips said it would be unreasonable to think that Justices of the Peace would be together and not discuss Quorum Court business.
Channell mentioned Act 505, a new law this year signed by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
That law attempts to clarify that an "'Informal meeting'" means the gathering of two (2) or more members of a governing body outside of a public meeting including by electronic means like a telephone or Zoom meeting.
Act 505 prohibits governing members such as Justices of the Peace from discussing items privately that are likely to come up for vote in public meetings.
However, the act also states that to prove such conversations exists so must a recording. It also allows conversations between officials can be about background and non-decisional information without violating the law. If officials ask each other to support a bill or an issue that will come up for a vote then the discussion seemingly becomes a violation.
Some transparency advocates have written that Act 505 actually compromises the Arkansas FOIA, weakening it and creating loopholes that allow for backroom deals.
Weber argued that the law wasn't even in effect when the Quorum Court met on July 21 or when the members traveled to Dallas.
True, it became law the first week of August, 90 days after the legislative session ended.
Phillips dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. That means Channell can file his complaint again with or without attorney representation.
Channell said he wasn't giving up questioning the county about their FOIA practices.
"After the court hearing it has brought up more questions than answers," Channell said. "Why was Weber not Howell trying the case. It's a county versus state issue. Why did the judge not really know why he was showing up there? We were told no cell phones then the judge looked up the FOIA lawsuit online. The AG'S office says that the prosecuting attorney’s office oversees FOIA violation laws. Why didn't the prosecuting attorney [Teresa Howell] look at this claim? Why was she defending the county instead of doing her job as prosecuting attorney to see if FOIA was violated? Should she have recused herself because she's the prosecuting attorney? She is charged by the State and the AG to uphold and review FOIA violations instead of defending counties."
