Arkansas parole administrators said they didn’t know about emails detailing the mishandling of an eight-time absconder’s case that weren’t released to the media.
Those emails were later shared with legislators and Board of Corrections members reviewing the parole agency’s handling of the case.
At least 36 emails discussing Darrell Dennis, the parolee whose history of violations before his arrest on charges of capital murder ignited several investigations and fueled criticism of the state’s parole system, were not included in a response to a June 4 Freedom of Information Act request from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Six of those emails became public after they were given to Corrections Board members and an additional 30 emails were given to members of a legislative oversight committee weeks later.
Included in the emails not shared with the newspaper were messages that showed attempts by Dennis’ parole officer to get Dennis off the street; emails illustrating confusion with Department of Community Correction policy; and some that appeared to show a disregard of the risks posed to public safety if Dennis remained free.
Tom Larimer, the executive director of the Arkansas Press Association, said he thinks the omission of such emails by the Department of Community Correction, the state’s parole agency, is a clear violation of the state’s Freedom of Information laws.
“You should get all of it,” Larimer said. “It sounds like they were holding out on you.”
The requests for the emails by legislators and Board of Corrections investigators, among other documents related to Dennis’ parole history, were prompted by a June 17 story in the Democrat-Gazette.
The day the story was published, Gov. Mike Beebe announced his own review of the Dennis case as well as a review of other problems facing the parole agency. An administrative investigation by the Arkansas State Police and several legislative reviews followed shortly.
Rhonda Sharp, the spokesman for the Community Correction Department at the time and custodian of its public records, including the emails, said she was unaware that the newspaper did not get all the pertinent emails.
According to Sharp, she asked David Eberhard, the director of the department at the time, to help gather the documents for the June 4 Freedom of Information request from the newspaper.
She said she was given a handful of emails, most of which were sent May 24, the day Dennis’ arrest was first reported in the Democrat-Gazette, and they were given to the newspaper June 6.
By June 27, Sharp bundled the other emails and other documents and forwarded them to the legislative liaison for the Joint Performance Review, who requested the same emails June 20 that the newspaper had sought June 4.
When asked why she didn’t notice there were more emails pertaining to Dennis included in the Legislature’s request, Sharp said she didn’t notice the discrepancy because she didn’t read through them.
“I had not seen those documents. I didn’t know what was in them,” Sharp said. “I was told [by Eberhard] what to send.”
Eberhard abruptly retired July 1 and has been replaced by Sheila Sharp, who became the Community Correction Department’s permanent director Aug. 19.
Rhonda Sharp is no longer the department’s spokesman though she remains with the agency. In late August, Dina Tyler, former Correction Department assistant director, took over as the agency’s new deputy director of communications and public affairs.
When asked if she thought the public-records request was mishandled, Tyler said she would have reviewed the emails in question to determine which materials could be released. If there was material that couldn’t be released, she would have given an explanation, Tyler said.
Tyler said she and Sheila Sharp are crafting new policies that will enable parole officials to share more information about parolees.
“The way the policy exists currently at [the agency], you really can’t talk about an offender at all,” Tyler said. “I hope going forward, the flow of information is smoother.”
The failure to disclose the emails, whether or not intentional, is a cause for concern, according to Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley.
He said Rhonda Sharp’s handling of the June 4 request is, at the least, suspect.
“It stinks,” Jegley said. “I wouldn’t want to be so reckless as to say that’s a criminal violation, that someone ought to be prosecuted, but it stinks.”
According to emails released to the Legislature’s Joint Performance Review Committee, when word of Dennis’ arrest reached parole administrators, there was some confusion.
While submitting a report about Dennis’ arrest and his recent parole history to the Little Rock area parole manager, Kristie Baker, assistant manager Violet Renee wrote: “I screwed up on this one. When I did his last conference, I think I went off the wrong edition of the [ discipline guideline system]. Recommended [a technical violator center] and he waived. Under the latest edition it should have just been a hearing.”
Less than an hour later, Renee sent another email to Baker, this one marked “high” “importance.”
“Correction, I did not mess up. There was a hearing request submitted on May 2nd and it was denied on May 6th,” Renee wrote.
Dennis, who racked up at least 10 felonies through at least 14 arrests since his release from prison, was last arrested May 1 on his seventh abscond warrant.
According to the emails released to legislators, Dennis’ parole officer, Debra James, requested May 2 that Dennis be put up for a parole-revocation hearing.
Four days later, Baker, who has since been demoted to parole case officer, and Damian McNeal, assistant director of parole and probation services, denied James’ motion and chose to send Dennis to a technical violator center instead, according to the emails.
“I agree try [a technical violator center]. I didn’t see that he was ever in [one],” McNeal wrote May 3. “Also, this guy needs to be looked at for some mental health and substance use funding upon release. He is clearly a treatment case.”
On May 8, Dennis met with Renee and was told he’d have to go to a technical violator center and to report to a parole officer within 24 hours.
He never showed, and around 30 hours after he was released from jail, police found the body of 18-yearold Forrest Abrams, who had been shot and dumped in a Little Rock intersection early on May 10.
When Baker got word from Renee about Dennis’ arrest May 23, just a little more than two weeks after agreeing to allow Dennis to remain free, she wrote back saying she didn’t “remember this guy.”
After Renee reminded Baker about the May request,she referred to a similar request from James in early April that Dennis get a revocation hearing after his sixth abscond warrant as well as new charges regarding possession of instruments of crime.
“Now I remember this is one that Debra tried to sell for a hearing but it was denied due to him not having any charges pending at all,” Baker wrote.
At the time of James’ requests that Dennis get a parole hearing, Dennis had several felony and misdemeanor charges pending. Those charges, in addition to the newest charges of capital murder, kidnapping and aggravated robbery, are still pending.
A Board of Corrections investigation released to the media in August ruled that neither McNeal nor Baker violated department policy that was in effect at the time.
But according to the report, given Dennis’ history of not reporting to parole officers, as well as a likelihood that he’d commit another drug offense, McNeal and Baker “did not err on the side of public safety” in their handling of Dennis’ case.
McNeal was fired Aug. 19 for untruthfulness stemming from a 2011 incident. Baker was demoted July 22 for poor performance.
When asked whether certain emails, including those between McNeal and Baker, were intentionally withheld from the media, Rhonda Sharp said she did no such thing. She called the omission an oversight.
She said she had not asked the parole officers or field supervisors involved in the Dennis case for correspondence on the case.
“It was my error,” Rhonda Sharp said. “I should have thought to ask but I didn’t.”
She said she thought the information contained in the emails wouldn’t have been shared by email. She said she was led to believe that parole officers and their supervisors use the agency’s internal system for day-to-day work.
“I honestly didn’t think to contact [parole] officers [about their emails],” Rhonda Sharp said. “I did not withhold emails from [the newspaper]. I did not know about them.”
Larimer, of the press association, said public agencies are not protected if their custodians were unaware of the existence of certain documents.
“That’s not an excuse. They can’t circumvent the FOI law because they’re ignorant. It’s not like that hasn’t been tried before,” Larimer said. “The law is the law. They don’t get to pick and choose which parts they get to follow.”
Jegley said he wasn’t aware of any reason why legislators would be more entitled to public work emails than anyone else requesting public records.
“They’ll probably afford [state officials] some exalted status, mainly because the Board [of Corrections] controls the hiring and personnel matters and the Legislature controls the purse strings,” Jegley said. “But it shouldn’t be that way.”
Added Jegley: “The matters are clearly FOI-able, I don’t know if ignorance is an excuse.”
Front Section, Pages 1 on 09/08/2013