Bad for the DOG for not noting that a tip to the Arkansas Times, and a Times information request, unearthed the news in the first place.
PS ON THE MEAT OF THE MATTER: A reader who's had some dealings with the state Ethics Commission writes to object to Commission Director Graham Sloan's seeming off-hand exoneration of Hurst in an interview with the D-G, particularly in that his remarks were based on the presumption that she had not requested the payment from the city. That is an issue that remains at best unclear. It's hard, after all, to know how the bill reached the city if Hurst didn't direct it there. She and the city haven't been taking questions. The reader complains:
A reporter calls Graham Sloan. He offers an opinion without any evidence. He says "well, it is not like she used her position to pressure the city" and so it is not a violation of the statute that prohibits special privileges. How the hell does he know? In fact, we know his premise is false. Now, if someone files a complaint, Graham is not going let the facts get in the way and change his opinion.