John Paul Hammerschmidt Building in Fayetteville, AR on a bright summer day” by Brandonrush, via Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. No changes made (other than standard resizing for web display)
Below are my remarks Thursday night (December 18, 2025) about the $500,000 settlement in a federal civil rights discrimination case against the Quorum Court.
EagleCrest Recovery, operating a residential addiction treatment facility near Beaver Lake, sued the county in federal court in 2024, alleging discrimination under federal disability and housing laws. The lawsuit stemmed from claims that Washington County improperly required the facility to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) it was not legally required to have.
The federal judge, Timothy L. Brooks, issued an injunction in December 2024 preventing the county from enforcing any CUP and allowing EagleCrest to continue operating the residential facility while the case moved forward. In the order, the judge said EagleCrest had a "substantial probability" of winning the case.
The federal judge ordered all Justices of the Peace to appear in court on Friday, December 5, 2025, for a settlement hearing, to see if the two sides could resolve the case before it went to trial in January 2026. During the hearing, Justices negotiated a settlement by majority vote and asked questions of the County Attorney. The settlement would resolve the case and avoid further litigation.
The proposed settlement terms were spelled out in an ordinance to be passed by the Quorum Court at a public meeting. At the December 18 Quorum Court meeting, the settlement ordinance passed 12-2, with one abstention. Justices of the Peace Robert Massingill and Beth Coger were the “no” votes. Justice Bradley Bruns abstained.
I voted "yes" because I am not willing to throw good money after bad, gambling millions more in taxpayer dollars that we can’t afford, in a case that never should have happened in the first place.
Here's the video:
I want to explain my vote to the public in three words you can hold me to: Risk, Responsibility, and Reality.
The U.S. Constitution & Federal Law
When I was sworn into office, I took an oath. “I, Evelyn Rios Stafford, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution is known as the “Supremacy Clause.” It says that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land”. That means when federal law and local law are in conflict, federal law wins. That is not a political opinion. That’s the Constitution.
In this case, the federal laws are the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. People in drug and alcohol recovery are protected under those laws. And federal guidance has been clear for years that when people in recovery live together in a home-like setting, local government has to treat it as housing for zoning purposes, and not single it out for special hurdles.
So we can feel strongly about what we wish our local planning and zoning code says, but our oath is to the law we actually have, and to the federal law that outranks it.
Risk
A federal civil rights lawsuit is not a normal lawsuit. The stakes are high, and the price tag can be high. And we are not guessing about the risk here. The federal judge has already said we have a “substantial probability” of losing.
The question in front of us is simple: do we keep spending taxpayer dollars and staff time, or do we put a hard ceiling on the cost and move on?
Because this litigation is being paid by the people: by every household that pays taxes in Washington County. I am not willing to gamble millions more in taxpayer dollars that we can’t afford.
There is also the risk that losing in federal court could set a legal precedent that we don’t want.
To me, that’s the real risk to our planning and zoning code. Right now, there is no legal precedent and our planning and zoning codes stand intact.Responsibility
Good governing means knowing when a fight stops being productive and starts being expensive. It means choosing the option that best protects the public, even when that option is unpopular with some people.
A settlement is a decision to stop spending public money on a legal battle when the smarter move is to cut the risk and move forward.
Reality
People have real concerns. I hear them.
But reality also means being honest about what Washington County can actually enforce and what we cannot. Fire code enforcement is handled by the State Fire Marshal. Septic enforcement is handled through State Health Department. We do not enforce those and never have. County government still enforces County rules that apply to everyone, like occupancy rules and criminal justice, and we will keep doing that. The settlement does not end public accountability, and it does not prevent lawful enforcement of county rules… as long as those don’t conflict with federal law.
This doesn’t change our zoning laws. It doesn’t erase the CUP process. It doesn’t change our ordinances. And it does not create any new precedent that wasn’t already in federal law.
What we are deciding tonight is whether to keep pouring more taxpayer dollars into an already-expensive federal lawsuit, or to resolve it, pay a defined amount, treat people in recovery with the same fairness we owe to every resident, and get back to the real work that our residents expect from us.
That is why I’m voting yes on the settlement.