Arkansas Funeral Licensing Board Reinstated a Level 3 Sex Offender’s Professional License Based on “Safety Measures” It Never Made Conditions of the License

AATL BRIEFING | AUGUST 14, 2026

There are more than 500 pages of state records that were obtained through the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act in reference to a state agency responsible for funeral licensing handled Case No. 18-13 involving Chilton Blunt, a Level 3 registered sex offender whose funeral director license was reinstated in December 2018. This analyzation surrounds whether a government agency charged with protecting the public actually did its job when it exercised its discretion to restore a professional license in a case involving significant and known public safety concerns. The records document failures involving risk assessment, enforceable safeguards, compliance monitoring, criminal history review, institutional record keeping and public transparency.

The Board said specific safety measures protected the public. It relied on those measures when reinstating the license; however, it failed to make those measures conditions of the license. In its December 2018 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, the Arkansas funeral licensing board acknowledged Blunt’s criminal history and expressly found:

“Respondent is a registered sex offender, level 3.”

The Board also concluded the “Respondent cannot pass the State Police criminal background check because of his felony convictions.” The underlying case involved Blunt’s convictions following conduct with an at risk juvenile connected to his former work as a youth advocate. Regardless of those findings, the Board exercised its discretion to reinstate his funeral director license. The problem surrounds how the Board justified and administered the decision(s). The Board wrote the “Respondent presented satisfactory evidence to the Board that sufficient measures have been installed at his place of employment, so that the public is protected.” The hearing transcript shows exactly what the Board was being told. Blunt testified, stating “I’m never alone with a child, or a minor, for that matter.” Additionally, he testified that surveillance cameras existed throughout the facility and said his employer “can view it from his phone, and he closely monitors it.”

His employer, J. Morrill Gray, was asked how closely Blunt was supervised. Gray testified, stating “Just like if I bat my eyes, that’s how close he’s supervised. I’m right up on him.” When asked about Blunt traveling to other funeral home locations, Gray also stated “I’m traveling with him or Ms. Marks is traveling with him. He’s never alone.” These statements were presented as part of the explanation for how the public would be protected if Blunt’s professional license was reinstated. From there, the Board issued its order and the safeguards disappeared.

FINDING I:

The final licensing order required Blunt to provide favorable parole reports quarterly during the first year, provide annual reports afterward., complete continuing education, comply with state law, and comply with parole requirements. The order did not require the workplace protections the Board relied on when deciding the public would be protected. It did not require that Blunt never be alone with minors, surveillance cameras, Gray to personally supervise him, another employee to accompany him between locations, the Board to inspect or verify the cameras or supervision, notification if his employer, job responsibilities or supervision changed, or condition the license upon Blunt continuing to work under the employer whose supervision was used to justify reinstatement. The Board’s December 2018 meeting minutes document the similarly.

The formal motion included parole reporting and other conditions; however, workplace safeguards were not incorporated. If those safeguards were necessary for the Board to conclude that “the public is protected,” why did the Board not require them to continue?

Read the December 2018 Board Order

Read the December 2018 Board Minutes

FINDING II:

When reporters began asking about Blunt’s reinstatement in February 2019, internal agency correspondence documented how the decision was being explained. An agency email states “The facility also spoke to the board as to what safety measures they were using relative to the individual asking for reinstatement.” This public explanation is parallel to the Board’s written conclusion that “sufficient measures” were present. There is a vast difference, however, between saying someone testified that these protections would exist and the State required these protections as a condition of holding the license. The records reflect the first but do not show the second.

FINDING III:

The Board’s final order discusses Blunt’s sexual assault and sexual indecency convictions; however, the evidentiary materials obtained through FOIA contain additional convictions under Arkansas Code § 5-27-602 involving sexually explicit material depicting a child. Blunt acknowledged those offenses himself during sworn testimony. When he was asked which offenses he had been convicted of, he answered “First-degree sexual assault, sexual indecency with a minor, possession and distributing depicting sexual matter involving a minor.” The sentencing records included in the Board’s own exhibits separately document convictions under § 5-27-602. Those additional convictions are absent from the concise criminal history contained in the Board’s final findings. Several years after this hearing, the agency was found to struggle in determining exactly which convictions Blunt had.

FINDING IV:

During the licensing hearing, Blunt was asked to describe the circumstances surrounding his criminal case. He testified: “I was working as — volunteering as a juvenile probation officer and entered into an inappropriate relationship with a minor — 17-year-old minor.” He described his role with the juvenile as “More like a mentor.”

The official sentencing order contained in the Board’s evidentiary materials identifies the victim as 16 years old. We are raising this as a possible perjury issue and calling for it to be formally investigated.Arkansas law defines perjury to include knowingly making a false material statement under oath in an official proceeding. The licensing hearing was an administrative proceeding in which Blunt was providing sworn testimony directly relevant to the Board’s evaluation of his criminal conduct, rehabilitation and suitability for professional licensure.

The sworn testimony and the official sentencing record do not agree on the age of the victim.We found no meaningful discussion resolving that discrepancy in the Board’s final findings. For a proceeding specifically examining criminal history, rehabilitation and public protection, that inconsistency should not simply disappear from the record.

FINDING V:

The records do not show that the board reviewed Blunt’s individualized socna assessment prior to reinstating his license. Almost one year after the license was restored, a state official working in Sex Offender Services contacted the licensing agency about Blunt. In November 2019, that official encouraged the agency to obtain his individualized Sex Offender Community Notification Assessment. The email states “I would encourage you to acquire a copy of Mr. Blunt’s SOCNA Assessment…” The official explained that it would provide “a more comprehensive scope of his past offending patterns.”

Blunt’s license had already been reinstated in December 2018. The recommendation to obtain the individualized assessment came in November 2019. The records produced include general information concerning Level 3 classifications. We did not locate Blunt’s individualized SOCNA assessment among the materials supporting the original reinstatement decision. A generic explanation of what Level 3 means is not the same thing as reviewing the individualized assessment used to assign that classification. If the Board possessed and reviewed the individualized SOCNA assessment before reinstatement, it should be able to identify and produce it. If it did not, Arkansas should explain why.

FINDING VI:

Sex offender officials were asking questions about minors after the license had already been restored. On May 1, 2019, Board counsel Amanda Gibson emailed agency staff asking “Do you have the transcript from his hearing?” She explained “I told the sex offender registration people I would review it to see what exactly the testimony was re: him being around minors.” The license had been restored approximately five months earlier. The response from Executive Secretary Amy Goode was “No we don’t order them unless they appeal it.” Additional correspondence explained “She never sends us one, unless we order it, since they can be costly we don’t order unless necessary.”

The agency then obtained the transcript. The testimony about supervision and interaction with minors was part of the factual basis the Board used when deciding that the public would be protected. But, months after granting the license, the agency’s own attorney needed to obtain the hearing transcript to determine exactly what had been said when another state entity began asking questions.

FINDING VII:

The compliance monitoring system was already improvised within weeks of his reinstatement. The Board ordered favorable parole reports every quarter during the first year.

The compliance monitoring system was already improvised in the weeks of reinstatement of his license. The board ordered favorable parole reports every quarter during the first year. On January 4, 2019, Board counsel emailed staff “Can you guys put his file in some sort of monitor status…” Goode responded “Do you know off hand when the first one is due? I will set myself an outlook reminder.” Counsel answered “I believe the order says quarterly but you might want to check.”

These communications occurred only weeks after a conditional reinstatement involving significant public safety considerations. By April 2, a problem had already surfaced. Goode emailed “we did not receive the report from his parole officer, that was due yesterday.” The first report eventually arrived months later. Paradise Funeral Home’s cover letter stated that it had been attempting to obtain the parole officer documentation for approximately two months. A compliance requirement is only meaningful if the government has a reliable mechanism to enforce it. The records reviewed here show that monitoring being handled, at least in part, through an employee’s personal Outlook reminder.

FINDING VIII:

The first parole report disclosed a positive THC test three days after the licensing hearing. The reinstatement hearing occurred on December 4, 2018. The eventual parole report states “Mr. Blunt did test positive for THC/marijuana on 12/7/2018.” The report indicates that he received a verbal warning and was referred for a substance abuse assessment. It also states that additional treatment was not recommended and ultimately characterizes him as compliant with sex offender specific conditions.

A positive THC test while on parole is problematic because people on parole are typically required to comply with supervision conditions restricting unlawful drug use and unauthorized controlled substances. A supervision event occurred three days after the hearing, and the Board had specifically conditioned continued licensing upon favorable parole reporting. Because of the reporting delays, the Board did not receive that information through the quarterly reporting process until months later.

FINDING IX:

In 2020, the board officially found the reporting charge true and then dismissed it. Problems with the required reporting eventually resulted in another Board proceeding in June 2020. The Board’s official meeting minutes state “Charge 1 was found true.” The minutes indicate that the Board also determined Blunt’s inability to obtain all four required reports was outside his control. Then the Board concluded “Board agreed to dismiss the charge against the Respondent and no further action will be taken.”

The Board was entitled to consider mitigating circumstances and evidence concerning responsibility; however, the public record still establishes the following sequence: The Board required four reports, all four reports were not received as required, and the factual allegation was proven. “Charge 1 was found true.” and the Board dismissed the charge.

No further action was taken.

Read the June 2020 Board Minutes

FINDING X:

The reporting problem did not complete in the hearing in 2020. On February 10, 2023, Goode emailed Blunt stating “We are missing a report for 2022…” On March 1, she followed up “Following up on this…we need a 2022 report from your parole officer.”

The FOIA production contains a March 2023 parole report. We did not locate a separate 2022 annual report among the records produced. As of February and March 2023, the licensing agency itself was documenting that the required 2022 report was missing.

FINDING XI:

The original so called safety rational was dependent on the extreme supervision. By 2023, Blunt identified himself as “Funeral Director in charge/chief operating officer”. At the 2018 hearing, Gray described Blunt’s supervision as extraordinarily close. “I’m right up on him.” He also said “He’s never alone.”

That supervision formed part of the factual basis upon which the Board concluded sufficient measures existed to protect the public. By March 2023, however, Blunt’s own email signature identified him as “Funeral Director in Charge / Chief Operating Officer”

We found no document in this production showing that the Board formally revisited whether the close supervision arrangement presented in 2018 continued to exist after Blunt assumed a leadership role. Additionally, because the Board never made Gray’s supervision an explicit licensing condition, the original order did not create an obvious requirement that the agency reevaluate the arrangement when Blunt’s employment position changed.

If extraordinary supervision was important enough to justify reinstatement in 2018, what happened when the person being supervised later became Funeral Director in Charge and Chief Operating Officer?

FINDING XII:

In 2021, board counsel correctly determined that Blunt was NOT eligible for an embalmer license. Arkansas subsequently changed its occupational licensing law. Act 990 of 2019 created permanent licensing disqualifications involving specified offenses, including first degree sexual assault. That law was enacted after Blunt’s December 2018 funeral director reinstatement. The law became relevant when Blunt later explored obtaining a separate embalmer license.

On April 5, 2021, Board counsel reviewed his criminal record and wrote “I reviewed his sentencing order and the relevant statute, and unfortunately, he is not eligible to hold an embalmer’s license.” Counsel specifically identified his first degree sexual assault conviction. At that point, the agency had correctly identified the disqualifying offense.

Review Arkansas Act 990 Materials

FINDING XIII:

Two years later, the same agency initially reached the opposite conclusion. In February 2023, Blunt again contacted the agency about an embalmer license. Board counsel wrote internally “I’m sure it is, but we’ll have to dig up the court records if they are not in his file.” Those records had already been part of the underlying licensing case. Counsel then reviewed one of Blunt’s other convictions and wrote “Unbelievably- the child porn statute he was convicted of is not listed in 17-3-102. This is crazy.”

The initial conclusion was “It’s not a disqualifying offense- the statute he was convicted of. He can apply for his embalmer license and not have to have a hearing.” That conclusion contradicted the agency’s own 2021 determination. Another employee, Tasha Tidwell, caught the problem and questioned whether the first degree sexual assault conviction had been overlooked. Counsel then responded “Tasha found that there are actually 2 different sentencing orders…” and “the other order indicates he WAS convicted of a disqualifying felony.”

The agency adjudicated Blunt’s criminal history in 2018 and the sentencing orders were contained in the underlying case materials. The agency correctly analyzed the disqualifying conviction in 2021 and then in 2023, the agency initially reached the opposite conclusion until another employee located the other sentencing order. The accuracy of the agency’s criminal history records directly affected whether another professional license could legally be pursued.

FINDING XIV:

The state’s public database does not currently provide the 2020 order it says is inflicted. The Arkansas Insurance Department maintains a public Board Orders database. That database identifies a Case No. 18-13 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order dated June 17, 2020 involving Chilton Blunt. As of August 14, 2026, following the public link associated with Case 18-13 produces the December 2018 reinstatement order. It does not produce a separate June 2020 order. The 2020 proceeding involved the reporting failures and the finding “Charge 1 was found true.”

The public should not need to conduct a large FOIA investigation to reconstruct a professional licensing case that the State represents as available through its own public database.

View the Arkansas Board Orders Database

Every state entrusts occupational licensing boards with significant government power over livelihoods, professional access, and public safety. Discretion without competent safeguards and meaningful oversight is. Conditional licensing only protects the public when conditions are real, risk decisions are based on complete information, monitoring is actually enforced, records are accurately maintained, and the public can access them. Arkansas can support rehabilitation, reentry, and second chances without abandoning competent oversight. If safeguards are necessary to protect the public, they should be written into the order, made enforceable, monitored, verified, documented, and reassessed when circumstances change.