Piling on?

I received an email last week from a reader who said he was “a little surprised” to see a follow-up report on state Sen. Bob Ballinger finally settling his debt for advertising in the Agriculture Appreciation Days program, especially “since the election is over now.”

The reader had more to say, too, about former state legislator Bryan King of Green Forest, who defeated Ballinger in a June 21 runoff to win the Republican nomination for the District 28 seat in the Arkansas Senate.

“I was made aware that you and Bryan King were really close friends, therefore don’t expect to see any in-depth reporting on King’s voting record (and other questionable conduct/performance) from his time in office! And now, from what I’ve seen, apparently they were correct!

“Have I missed the articles that accurately (and thoroughly) report Mr. King’s record?”

There’s a lot to unpack here. First, I should point out that I responded to the reader’s questions, as I’ll do here, and we had a polite discussion via email. I appreciate the gentleman for reading, taking the time to reach out to me and considering my responses.

Now, let’s talk about Mr. King and Sen. Ballinger, in that order, and why it was important to follow up on the Ballinger-Ag Days issue.

I know Bryan King. We’ve spoken by phone many times. We’ve had conversations in my office. It makes sense that we would, given our respective positions. If I see Mr. King at a meeting or other function, we’ll say hello or maybe even speak for a few minutes. But I wouldn’t call us “really close friends.” I’d never met Mr. King until I came to Carroll County eight years ago. I was aware of him because I’ve been in the news business in this state for a long time and Mr. King was very visible during his time in the Legislature.

Frankly, I didn’t have a favorable impression of Mr. King before I met him. That impression was based solely on what I’d read about his politics, and it wasn’t fair. When I did meet Mr. King, I was surprised by his willingness to engage in a civil conversation about the issues, even with someone he didn’t agree with. That’s, sadly, a rarity these days.

So, I have pleasant conversations with Mr. King. But I’ve never been invited to his Super Bowl party and he’s never had the pleasure of eating one of the fat steaks I cook to perfection just about every Sunday. We’re not unfriendly, but we’re not “really close friends.”

I still disagree with Mr. King on most political issues, and he understands that. In fact, from a political perspective, I don’t see a great deal of separation between Mr. King and Sen. Ballinger. I think it’s fair to say they probably agree with one another politically far more often than either of them ever agree with me.

The difference, in my opinion — and it’s a stark difference — is a matter of personal honesty and integrity.

The Ag Days episode is a perfect example. I first contacted Sen. Ballinger on May 4 to ask if it was true that he hadn’t paid for advertising in the Ag Days program in previous years, despite receiving multiple invoices. He didn’t respond. We reported on the unpaid debt in our May 10 issue. The following day, May 11, Sen. Ballinger’s campaign Facebook page said the debt had been paid. A source who would know told me it had not. On May 17, we reported on the differing statements. On May 20, the source told me the debt had been paid. We reported as much in the following week’s paper.

On July 13, I texted Sen. Ballinger to inform him that, in reviewing his campaign’s contribution and expenditure report, I noticed an expenditure to the Green Forest Chamber of Commerce, which puts on the annual Ag Days. That expenditure was dated May 20 — nine days after Sen. Ballinger’s campaign said the debt had been paid. I asked Sen. Ballinger to clarify the discrepancy in dates. I did not receive a response.

I debated, frankly, whether to report on what I had discovered. In the end, two factors helped me make the decision to do so. First, Sen. Ballinger remains an elected public official, even if only for a few more months. As such, he should be held accountable. Second, there were conflicting stories about whether the debt had actually been paid by May 11. The campaign finance report shed some light on that question and readers deserved to have that information.

Some folks, of course, will see this as “piling on” Sen. Ballinger even after his runoff defeat. But the truth is, his political career is likely far from over. And the people Sen. Ballinger represents right now have a right to know whether he is being truthful.

If we can’t believe Sen. Ballinger when he says he’s paid a debt by a certain date or when he says he was ready and willing to testify in a lawsuit over the infamous “$18 fee” — and there’s good evidence to suggest we can’t believe him in either case — it makes sense to question whether we can believe him when he says he doesn’t owe any more back taxes or that he didn’t benefit financially after he directed state funds to Ecclesia College. As I mentioned earlier, Sen. Ballinger remains an elected public official. His credibility — or lack thereof — is fair game. So is Mr. King’s, and anyone who believes I’ll hesitate for a second to report it if I catch him being less than truthful clearly hasn’t been paying attention.

Scott Loftis is managing editor for Carroll County Newspapers. His email address is SLoftis@cherryroad.com.