Mitchell Archer Named Interim Boone County Judge

HARRISON, AR. - The Boone County Quorum Court recently chose Mitchell Archer to serve as the temporary county judge. After a two-and-a-half-hour meeting on April 9, where they interviewed four final candidates, the court made its decision.

Justice Sullins expressed confidence in the selection process, noting that the initial group of fourteen applicants had been narrowed down to four highly qualified individuals. The public waited outside during the interviews, which included candidates Ivy Day, Robert Largent, Mike Moore, and Mitchell Archer.

Once the interviews concluded, the audience was allowed back inside. A motion was quickly made to nominate Mitchell Archer for the position. The court then voted, with Archer receiving seven votes in favor and three against, from Justices Kyle Evatt, Sam Tinsley, and Glenn Redding. Justice Sullins commented that it was a difficult choice among excellent candidates.

A small delay occurred when it was realized the official document for Archer's appointment wouldn't take effect until midnight. To avoid waiting, a quick change was made to allow him to be sworn in immediately at 9 p.m. Crystal Graddy then officially administered the oath.

Mitchell Archer shared his deep roots in Boone County, mentioning his family has lived there for four generations. He also highlighted his 35 years of experience with the Arkansas Department of Transportation and his 18 years on the Bergman School Board. Archer emphasized his commitment to openness and clear communication in his new role.

This temporary position will last until December 31st of this year. After that, judge-elect Tyler Gentry will take over the permanent role. The county had received fourteen applications for the interim position between March 25th and April 1st.

The selection process included a previous meeting where justices met privately to narrow down the list of applicants. During that earlier meeting, applicant Paul Bode questioned Justice Sullins about how the court would explain its choices to the public. Sullins responded that the justices were elected to make decisions and were not required to publicly explain their reasoning, especially regarding private executive sessions. He suggested that if the public disagreed with their decisions, they could express it through voting or running for office.