Friday, July 31, 2015



On September 17, 2012 the Department of Finance & Administration filed a Certificate of Indebtedness against Kenneth and Sharon Williams-Heroman for non payment of income taxes in the amount of $1,126.12 for the period of 12/31/2010 through 12/31/2011.

The Heroman's finally paid their tax obligation and obtained a release on November 27, 2012.

Heroman has worked for the ABC since 1999 and his wife at the time was a certified court reporter. Both appear to have had above average incomes for Arkansas. At the time Kenny's state salary was over $50,000.00 a year and Lydia's income was over $40,000 a year (Court Report Salary in Arkansas). The Arkansas per capita income in 2011 was $33,740.00.

The Heroman's owned two homes at the time (and still do), one in Pine Bluff...

and the other in East End...

Heroman more than likely receives retirement benefits from the Pine Bluff Police Department. He might have had some income from fishing tournaments, but he probably spent more on his boat and gear that he could ever win.  Maybe that's why he couldn't pay his tax obligation.

Heroman also had other assets. His mother passed away in May of 2011 and her estate was split between him, his son and a brother. Heroman's share of the estate was around $32,000.00.

Why was Heroman not able to pay his taxes with all the income and assets he possessed?

By not paying his tax obligation in a timely manner he placed his job in jeopardy. DFA has a policy about tax deadbeats...

We assume that Heroman entered into some agreement with DFA to pay his taxes to avoid a garnishment and possible termination.  It's not good for a DFA employee to not pay their taxes on time and for DFA to file a Certificate of Indebtedness.  It's also bad for the ABC to have an enforcement agent not pay his taxes when that is a question that comes up in the application for permits that he would be checking on as a part of his job.

The quality and ethics of the individuals working at the ABC is amazing.

Thursday, July 30, 2015


Shortly after Boyce Hamlet was appointed as director of ABC Enforcement, he held face-to-face meetings with the 18 agents employed at the time and got a lot of input from them about how the department should be run. Apparently the agents had issues with the ABC Administration, believing that the director of ABC Administration made decisions based on political motives which sometimes conflicted with their enforcement procedures (more on that in a future post).

Hamlet, with no previous leadership, administrative or management experience and very little real law enforcement experience knew that he could not run ABC Enforcement without having a lot of help. After the meetings one of the agents, Rickey Endsley, sent Hamlet an email in which he touted his law enforcement administrative experience.

Too bad Endsley didn't know that Hamlet had been fired by the Arkansas State Police for cheating on an exam and lying multiple times to investigators and that he had previously submitted false and misleading information on his employment application to cover up his employment and termination from ASP or he would have included Hamlet as the main reason that the ABC has serious exposure/liability issues that can cripple the ABC.

Hamlet had to do something quick because he had no idea how to do any of the job functions that he was appointed to do. Hamlet was seeking advice from two of his employees Sharon Reed and Kenny Heroman. Reed worked in Little Rock in the same office as Hamlet and Heroman while living and working in Pine Bluff had been the assistant director of the Enforcement Division.

Hamlet did not know what to do with information his agents were sending him or reports that agents were sending into him.

And Hamlet complained about getting reports from his agents at 9:30 pm which woke him up.

So Hamlet after meeting with DFA Director Larry Walther and DFA Human Resources Manager Amy Valentine came up with a solution that would keep Hamlet's job safe. The solution was to make four agents "supervisors" and delegate a lot of his responsibilities of running the enforcement division to them. These agents were hand picked and the "positions" were not advertised, internally or externally. They had to wait until the new fiscal year started in June to make the changes.

The hand picked agents to take over most of Hamlet's duties were, Sharon Reed, Kenny Heroman, Rickey Endsley and Jay Rider.

The first thing he did was to get Reed trained to enter time into the AASIS system. Let the female do the secretarial work.

Then he had Reed take over the paying compensation to undercover minors.

Hamlet told his staff that he didn't come to mark time and draw a check (more on that in a bit) or paint...

The Hamlet told them they "need a new model on the way the place is ran [sic]".

So at the end of May, Hamlet submitted paperwork to give the four agents supervisory powers and a substantial pay raise. DFA OPM had concerns about this but had to kowtow to Hamlet/Walther for the unusual "promotions".


It's interesting to note that the memo states that Hamlet couldn't manage all of the agents, it was "not feasible".  That's HR jargon for "Hamlet's incompetent, but appointed by the Governor".

You might think that is the end of the shenanigans, but Hamlet got a raise too! When Hamlet was appointed in March he came on board with a salary of $65,000.00. Hamlet may not be too bright but he aced this deal.  He got rid of most of his day-to-day supervisory duties and got a  $8,125.00 raise. This is where marking time, drawing a check and painting begins.

Let's re-cap this, the four employees received a raise because of increased responsibilities (they took over most of Hamlet's duties) and Hamlet received a raise because of his increased responsibilities. Forget being "better stewards of the taxpayer dollar" (see Hamlet's April 24th email above). You might wonder what "expanding job responsibilities" Hamlet has...

Yep, Boyce can add fire extinguisher monitor to his expanding job duties.


Amy Valentine with the Department of Finance & Administration refused to discuss or answer questions posed to her regarding these shenanigans.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Saturday, July 25, 2015


CRISMAN (on left,no longer with ABC), ROBINSON (center)  & BOKKER (on right, no longer with ABC) 

In April 2013, ABC Enforcement agents failed to discover that a church was located within 1000 feet of the proposed location for the liquor store of Kym Reeves d/b/a 102 Liquors.  Had these seasoned law enforcement agents conducted their investigation properly, Reeves application would have been denied because it was too close (approximately 673 feet) to the Filadelfia Llamada Final N.W. Arkansas Church.

Ark. Code Ann. § 3-4-206(b)(1) states no new permit to sell liquor will  be issued if the location is within 1000 feet of any church or school.

The Filadelfia Llamada Final NWA church's Facebook page has activity as far back as 2009

According to the church's website they have been in Rogers since 2008

The church also obtained a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Rogers on October 28, 2011 with a listed address of 2800 N 2nd Street, Rogers AR. 

Photos on the church's Facebook page show services being held in March and April 2013.

From testimony agents gave at an administrative hearing concerning Reeves application/permit it's very clear that they did not check public records (permits or occupancy records at city hall) to determine if a church or school was located in the prohibited area, they simply relied on visual observations.


And when ABC Enforcement agent Robinson made contact with the pastor of the church he did not ascertain how long the church had been at the location. Extremely sloppy work.

One ABC Board member all but said it couldn't be a church because it did not look like a church.

Many churches today do not have a traditional appearance, and even one agent stated that in his testimony. It is not unusual to drive around Little Rock, or any city or town in Arkansas and see a church located in a building similar to the one that the Filadelfia Llamada Final N.W. Arkansas Church is located.

Not all church services are held in a building like this

A reasonable person would expect these agent would utilize more that just looking around to find out about the area.  Talk to nearby residents; go in a nearby gas station or convenience store to get information; check records at city hall; ask the local police or even use social media.


Or maybe the ABC Enforcement agents should contact us to help them avoid elementary mistakes like this one.

In a previous post on May 29th, ABC Enforcement Agent Lack Tools to Perform Job Functions, Bokker, the agent that initially missed the church testified in another administrative hearing that ABC Enforcement agents had no tools to do their job, except for Google.

ABC has a good sized budget and also has received some grants.  One would think that they would have more than Google to do their job. Some things like checking records at city hall or asking questions at a nearby gas station or convenience store cost nothing but time.  One has to asks if that it too hard for these agent to do, spend a little time and effort to do a thorough job.

If these ABC agents, especially Bokker, had bothered to use the only tool he stated under oath that he had to use, Google, they would have found a photo on Google Street View of a sign back in June 2012 that clearly indicated that a church was located at the site.

What led to a lawsuit being filed against the ABC was two individuals, Christopher Moore and James Linstruth both filed applications in close proximity to where Reeves liquor store is located. Both Moore and Linstruth's applications for permits were denied because of the same church that did not hinder Reeves obtaining a permit. Both claim that the ABC applied the law unequally when denying their permits and granting Reeves permit. If you are interested you can view the case (60CV-13-3278) and all the documents at the Administrative Office of the Courts CourtConnect Website.


Maybe the ABC should hire some agents with Hispanic backgrounds or that are fluent in Spanish to be able to read signs since their investigations rely so much on visual observations.

Friday, July 24, 2015


We are working on a story involving questionable position changes and salary changes at the ABC.  We are having difficulty in obtaining information from the Department of Finance & Administration, specifically, Amy Valentine, the DFA Human Resources Manager.


Valentine has refused to answer questions posed to her verbally and in writing, in an apparent violation of the Department of Finance & Administration Code of Ethics.

DFA employees, including Valentine, are to "respond promptly and accurately to all requests for information and complaints regardless of the source".

With our without cooperation from Valentine and the DFA our story will go out next week.

If you have time, why not ask Amy what is she hiding? Email her at, or call her at 501-371-6009.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Sunday, July 19, 2015


Very few acts of misconduct are as damaging to a law enforcement officer's career than that of lying.  Courts have noted time and again that integrity is a fundamental job requirement.  For example, the courts stated in Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 716:

A deputy sheriff's job is a position of trust and the public has the right to the highest standard of behavior from those they invest with the power and authority of a law enforcement officer. Honesty, credibility, and temperament are crucial to the performance of an officer's duties. Dishonesty is incompatible with the public trust.

Common sense tells you that to effectively prosecute crimes, officer credibility is critical.  Often, the officer's word is taken over that of a civilian, with both judges and juries frequently awarding a "tie" in a "he said, she said" or "swearing contest" to the officer based on "honesty" and "integrity" that is required to hold the job.  Thus when an officer's integrity is compromised, management understandably concluded that the law enforcement mission may be harmed by the officer's continued service.

Truthfulness is not only an issue of police witness credibility in a court of law; it strikes to the core of the ability to perform essential functions effectively.  Police officers complete factual reports based on their investigations and observations.  These reports are relied upon by others to further investigations and are often used as critical evidence in a variety of proceedings.  Officers take enforcement action; secure evidence; maintain confidential information; have access to privileged information; handle drugs; handle money, and guns' process crime scenes; maintain reports of crimes and accidents; and, importantly, they are authorized by law to dispossess others of their constitutional rights and use deadly force when appropriate. Simply put, a law enforcement officials word, and the complete veracity of that word, is fundamentally necessary to doing the job.

Integrity is so important to the law enforcement professional that a single lie can cost an officer his or her career.  As noted in Kolender, supra at 722:

While at common law, every dog was entitled to one bite, we know of no rule of law holding every deputy sheriff is entitled to [tell one lie] before he or she can be discharged...

Judicial pronouncements unequivocally provide that peace officers are held to the highest standards of behavior, with honesty and credibility being crucial to proper performance of their duties.  In Ackerman v. State Personnel Board (1983) Cal, App. 3d 395, the court found conduct could still support termination for a peace officer, because "a police officer must be held to a higher standard than other employees.  A police officer is expected to tell the truth".

Under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, to ensure a fair criminal trial, prosecutors are obligated to notify criminal defendants about exculpatory evidence, which includes evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a material prosecution witness.  This is especially significant to the ability to effectively prosecute cases because an officer is often the only witness to the charged criminal act or the incriminating statements or conduct, and criminal defendants often dispute the officer's account of evidence.

Thus, dishonesty poses a dilemma for the employing law enforcement agency.  If the Prosecuting Attorney's Office takes the position that it will not prosecute cases where the only witness in a Brady officer, then the officer cannot perform one of his or her fundamental job duties. In addition this can impact other officers as well p what happens if an officer proven to be dishonest in one instance is the only witness as to the actions of another officer in the field in, for example, an officer involved shooting.  The harm would not fall on the Brady officer, but on his or her colleague because the only corroborating witness is someone whose credibility has been severely undermined and damaged.

"Dishonesty" has been defined as conduct that "connotes a disposition to deceive" and " an absence of integrity; a disposition to cheat, deceive or defraud." Gee v. State Personnel Board (1070) 5 Cal. App. 3d 713, 718-719. Dishonesty "is not an isolated act; it is more a continuing trait of character." Gee, supra; Paulino v. Civil Service Commission of San Diego (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 962.

Honesty is the best policy, with untruthfulness to be an avoidable offense.  Tell the truth even when it makes you look bad.

Over the last few weeks we have made repeated requests for Hamlet to admit or deny that he withheld his employment and termination from the Arkansas State Police from his former employers and the Mississippi Law Enforcement Certification agency. Hamlet refused to respond.

The facts in this matter are clear. Hamlet has no business being a certified law enforcement officer much less heading a law enforcement agency. Hamlet's law enforcement credentials need to be revoked and he needs to be removed from his position as director of ABC Enforcement to protect the integrity and reputation of the Department of Finance and Administration, the Alcoholic Beverage Control and the State of Arkansas.

Saturday, July 18, 2015


According to documents obtained from the Faulkner County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Boyce Hamlet provided false information regarding his actual dates of employment with the Arkansas Department of Correction to hide his employment and termination from the Arkansas State Police.

In a child like, semi-literate scrawl on his application for employment with the Faulkner County Prosecuting Attorney, Hamlet listed that he began employment with the Arkansas Department of Community Correction in January 2000 and his employment there ended in January 2007.   

According to information obtained from the Arkansas Department of Community Correction (DCC) spokesman Dina Tyler, Hamlet was actually employed there in 2004 through 2007. DCC no longer has his personnel file due to the expiration of the required retention period.

In a post on June 1, 2015, we revealed that Hamlet was employed by the Arkansas State Police (ASP) as a trooper on July 9, 2000 until September 1, 2000 when the ASP fired Hamlet for cheating on an exam and then lying to ASP Special Investigators multiple times. 

It appears that Hamlet was trying to avoid revealing his employment and termination with the ASP because the reason that he was fired affects his integrity and credibility which is essential in a law enforcement officer.

We attempted to obtain copies of his employment applications from the Mississippi Department of Corrections and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, but the Mississippi Freedom of Information law does not permit the release of applications of employment.  We were able to speak with representatives of both agencies, who off the record advised us that Hamlet did not provide them with information regarding his employment and termination from the Arkansas State Police.

According to a spokesman with the Mississippi Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training (BLEOST) if Hamlet had disclosed on his application to be a law enforcement officer in Mississippi of the incident with the ASP that his application would have been rejected for cause.  The BLEOST Professional Certification Policy and Procedures Manual lists the following:

Hamlet received his law enforcement certification after completing a 12 week course when he was employed by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. According to the BLESOT spokesman Hamlet performance at the academy could be described as "average" and that "he scored in the bottom half of the class."

According to information obtained from the Department of Finance and Administration, they have no documents that reflect Hamlet was employed or fired by the ASP. Want to guess why?

Another interesting thing about the employment documents of Hamlet's we obtained is that there is conflicting information provided about his employment with UAPB Public Safety on his ASP employment documents and what UAPB documents relate. Hamlet's ASP documents reflect he told ASP he worked at UAPB from Jult 1977 through February 1999. UAPB states he only worked there in 1998 and their payroll records only reflect one paycheck in the amount of $316.00 on December 2, 1998.

There are also discrepancies in Hamlet's college attendance. Hamlet's Linkedin profile has that he attended the University of Arkansas at Monticello from 1991 through 2001 and makes no mention of his attending or graduating from UAPB.
Hamlet's ASP documents only have a high school degree circled on a hand written document and on another computer generated document it states he has a Bachelor of Science degree.

Maybe the degree is real or maybe it is contrived like his employment applications were to hide his employment and termination from ASP.

Hamlet has no integrity and lacks credibility and needs to be removed as the director of ABC Enforcement for obvious reasons.