A Jefferson County resident has filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review in County Court, challenging a recent order by County Judge Gerald Robinson that directed the disbursement of $53,052 to himself.
Former Jefferson County Quorum Court member Lloyd Franklin II, a resident and taxpayer of Jefferson County, filed the petition on Nov. 21, 2025, arguing that the order constitutes an “illegal exaction,” a direct conflict of interest and a failure to follow mandatory state financial-control procedures.
The petition centers on an order issued by Robinson on Oct. 22, which reportedly directed the county clerk to increase a payroll affidavit and pay $53,052 to the county judge.
Robinson approved a significant financial claim for his own unpaid salary, a move that was the latest development in a contentious budget and legal standoff with the Quorum Court.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
The controversy centered on Robinson’s claim for over $53,000 in unpaid salary for the first half of 2025. He argued that Act 24 of 2025, a state law that withheld his salary until a new budget was passed, was unconstitutional. Robinson asserted that the act violated Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits reducing a county officer’s compensation during their term. His annual salary is set at $115,750 by Ordinance 2023-64.
The dispute stemmed from a budget impasse that had previously halted payments for nearly 400 county employees. State Bill 182 was fast-tracked and signed into law to allow county operations to continue under the previous year’s budget. However, a key provision of SB182 specifically withheld the salaries of the county judge and pay for justices of the peace until the 2025 budget was passed.
During October’s hearing, Robinson’s attorney, Casey Castleberry, filed the claim, presenting evidence including an opinion from County Attorney Terry Wynne on the act’s unconstitutionality. Robinson, acting in his executive role as county judge, approved the claim, stating his decision was based on the county attorney’s opinion and the constitutional prohibition on reducing his pay.
Castleberry argued that the statute reducing Robinson’s pay to zero directly conflicts with Section 5 of Amendment 55 of the state constitution, which says a county officer’s compensation “may not be decreased during the current term.”
The 2025 budget was eventually passed on May 9, but Robinson vetoed the ordinance on May 16. The veto was overridden on June 9, leading Robinson to claim he is “now being paid from a budget that was improperly passed.”
In September, Robinson said Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin was formally notified of the constitutional question, a step required by state law. During the claim hearing, Castleberry argued that the statute reducing the judge’s compensation to zero directly conflicts with Section 5 of Amendment 55 of the state constitution, which stipulates that the compensation of each county officer shall be fixed by the Quorum Court and “may not be decreased during the current term.” Castleberry stated, “The statute is unconstitutional.”
According to Castleberry, correspondence with Griffin was also submitted, notifying him of the matter and confirming receipt of the letter. However, the attorney general’s office has not been interviewed.
A memo from Wynne offering an opinion on the constitutionality of the act was also introduced as evidence. Based on the claim, the county attorney’s opinion, and Amendment 55, the claim for payment was requested to be approved. The decision allows for a 30-day appeal period to the Circuit Court.
According to the appeal filed by Franklin, Robinson improperly acted as:
• The Claimant: Seeking a personal financial benefit.
• The Adjudicator: Presiding over his own financial claim.
• The Approving Official: Ordering the payment of taxpayer funds to himself.
The filing asserts that this action violates constitutional due-process requirements, the common-law rule against self-adjudication, and state conflict-of-interest prohibitions, including Ark. Code Ann. §14-14-1202(a)(3), which prohibits an officer from using their office to “advance his or her individual personal economic interest.”
A central argument in the appeal is that the order bypassed the legal process for county expenditures, which must be supported by lawful appropriations enacted by the Quorum Court.
According to the appeal notice, key failures cited in the petition include:
• Bypassing the Quorum Court: The petition states Robinson has “no authority to unilaterally increase, adjust, or approve salary payments inconsistent with the adopted 2025 county budget.”
• Failure to use the county clerk: The filing claims the payroll request was not properly processed and approved through the county clerk’s office. The clerk is described as the “statutory gatekeeper,” and bypassing this office is alleged to invalidate the procedure.
• Lack of approvals: The appeal notes a lack of approval by the three required officials for a claim — the county clerk, the county judge, and the county treasurer. This is cited as a violation of legislative audit standards and internal control policies.
• Lack of public transparency: The petition claims that no public notice, public hearing or public comment section was provided for the hearing on the county judge’s personal claim, nor was the county attorney notified or present.
Franklin is asking the County Court to intervene immediately to protect the $53,052 in taxpayer funds that the order directs to be paid without lawful appropriation.
The relief requested in the petition includes accepting jurisdiction of the appeal; staying the October 22, 2025, order to prevent payment; reversing and declaring the order void; and declaring any payment made an illegal exaction.
The petition concludes with a strong statement, characterizing the event as a “Total Failure of Process,” arguing that the failure of any single mandatory step in Arkansas’s claims process voids the entire action, calling the subsequent order “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
In response, Robinson said he had not seen the appeal yet.
“Lloyd Franklin is a citizen and does not stop the claim,” he said. “If my claim is not paid, my attorney will file an immediate mandamus against the county clerk.”