At a Thursday business conference, justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court took pains to debate the duties of Chief Justice Karen Baker.
Quickly after being sworn in this month, Baker attempted to fire ten court employees. One of these was Marty Sullivan, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Amendment 80 of the state constitution says the Administrative Office of the Courts director “shall hold office at the pleasure of the Supreme Court.”
Throughout the Thursday meeting, the majority of justices contended this language did not allow Baker to unilaterally fire Sullivan or the other nine employees she attempted to terminate. Baker insisted that the words “Supreme Court” in the amendment should confine the power to the Chief Justice only, meaning the court would be barred from approving terminations.
Baker also made an attempt to instate new members on the state Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission hours after being sworn in.
Baker claimed she had the sole power to appoint people to the commission, the same body that would investigate her if she was brought under disciplinary review.
Associate Justice Shawn Womack pointed out that this may be a way “pick her own jury.”
Baker struggled to provide evidence for these two legal interpretations when she was pressed by fellow justices for around an hour.
“I think you’re clearly wrong on that,” Womack said of her interpretation of the law and corresponding statute.
Baker asked Womack what she was allowed to do in her position.
“I can get you a list,” Womack said, explaining that the Chief Justice and the full court have different functions. Then referencing his nine years on the bench:
“I can't remember a time when a chief justice has asserted they have unlimited power to be the court.”
Baker's attempt to terminate employees came about after an human resources investigation launched into her last year. She was alleged to have entered Sullivan’s office for unclear reasons in December. The allegation is that she left his office “disheveled.”
Arkansas Business reported a human resources investigation was then prompted into Baker. Baker allegedly contacted the Chief of Supreme Court Police Pete Hollingsworth suggesting he have the surveillance footage of her entering the office removed. Hollingsworth was among the many employees she tried to fire.
She was questioned about these decisions by her colleagues Thursday. They extolled the work performance of the employees she tried to let go and needled her about her conviction that she was justified in terminating employees.
“I think Amendment 80 confers on the Chief Justice the responsibility to administer the functions of the Supreme Court,” Baker repeated in different ways to varied questions throughout the meeting.
Associate Justice Nicholas Bronni asked if she read the term “Arkansas Supreme Court” in law to mean: “you and you alone.”
“I'm just administering the function of the Court,” Baker said again.
Bronni asked if she could point to a statue that gave her the broad power she believes she has. Baker said she was “not prepared to answer.”
Womack then pulled up a copy of the state constitution and offered to read it to Baker.
“The Supreme Court should exercise general superintending control,” she said, and then no longer read from the constitution: “not the chief justice.”
Associate Justice Cody Hiland asked Baker if she had the power to fire employees who worked for individual justices. Baker said she did not.
“Well that's a limitation,” he said.
Hiland argued that it was inconsistent for Baker to claim she had the power to fire some court employees and not all of them. This went to an overarching concern throughout the meeting. Baker seemed unclear as to the limits of her power.
“According to your argument, couldn't you just argue that you could go in and fire everybody since you are the end all be all,” Hiland asked in jest.
Baker then shifted her argument to a claim she was concerned about “custom and practice” of the court. She told Hiland that this, “custom and practice,” is the only limitation of her job.
Associate Justice Rhonda Wood ran against Baker for the chief position. Wood pointed out that before she was the chief, Baker went along with the “custom and practice” of four members of the court needing to vote in order for an employee to be terminated
Wood was also confused as to why Baker had called for a court business meeting where justices were expected to vote on motions if she also believed she had the sole authority to make decisions.
“I want to proceed with the custom and practice,” Baker said again.
Hiland asked if Baker felt she was required to follow the votes at the business meeting, since she believed in her own unilateral authority.
Baker said she would honor the votes per “custom and practice.”
After a short cross examination from Hiland, Baker admitted she believed she could ignore the votes of her colleagues made in business meetings.
“Do you believe that you can outvote an administrative decision of a chief,” she asked.
Several justices said “yes.”
Justice Wood brought the meeting to a halt when she gave a small speech about judicial behavior.
“Justice Baker, all of us on this court in good faith want to work with you,” she said. “Having worked with the three chief justices that you worked with, what I can say is that none of those chief justices would have fired outstanding employees that would have grinded the whole system to a halt without even notifying a member of the court.”
She then referenced the employees that Baker attempted to terminate: “it can not go unsaid that those are some of the finest employees to ever serve the state of Arkansas.”
Wood praised the hard work and long hours of employees, and commended AOC Director Marty Sullivan specifically.
“It is unimaginable, the unprofessionalism,” she said of Baker. “That is not chief justice behavior.”
Wood asked Baker to apologize to the employees she attempted to terminate.
At one point, Associate Justice Courtney Hudson interrupted to say: “I don't know if it's fair for us to have this conversation with Marty in the room.”
From off screen Sullivan said: “I don't really care; we are live streaming it.”
After this part of the meeting, Baker shifted her stance again. She claimed that since chief justices can nominate candidates to be on the Supreme Court staff when there is a vacancy, she also had the right to terminate the same positions, something not in the plain language of state law.
When pressed, Baker said she would be willing to explain her interpretation of the law at a later date.
Wood made a standard procedural motion to approve business from a meeting in early January. Baker refused to allow a vote, something outside her purview under Robert's Rules of Order.
She then refused to validate a “second” to a motion to approve business from the January meeting.
Justice Hudson rolled her eyes.
Robert Rules allows members of a deliberative assembly to “appeal to the decision of the chair,” or override their decision. This can usually be done with a simple majority.
The body voted to overrule Baker's decision to not approve the second, voting to recognize items from a January meeting.
Baker crossed her arms, leaned back in her chair and scowled.
“It's the strangest thing,” she said.
Copyright 2025 KUAR
