Buchanan County’s financial assistance to the Appalachian School of Law drew pointed questions Oct. 5 as supervisors debated recovering the money while a possible partnership with the University of Pikeville remains under discussion.
The Board of Supervisors tabled an agenda item concerning reimbursement of the $3.4 million provided to ASL earlier this year, taking no action on repayment.
County Attorney Lee Moise requested the delay, explaining that a possible arrangement between Grundy Law School and the University of Pikeville (U-Pike) could include a plan to reimburse the county.
Moise said there were still several moving parts to work through.
The discussion follows months of concern about ASL’s financial stability and whether the school would remain in Buchanan County. Possible relocation to Roanoke or Lynchburg had been discussed, while a potential UPike partnership has raised hopes of keeping the school in Grundy.
Moise said the county provided ASL $100,000 in 2025 and another $3.4 million through an agreement reached in March, bringing the combined assistance to $3.5 million.
He said the March agreement includes a repayment provision and remains in place. A plan to return the money could become part of a potential UPike arrangement if an agreement is reached and the school’s financial stability is secured.
Knox Supervisor Trey Adkins said he had made the county board’s position clear to ASL’s board: Supervisors want the money back. He said the coming weeks would help determine where those discussions lead.
South Grundy Supervisor Roger Rife questioned why the board was seeking reimbursement after approving the assistance.
“We voted to give it to them. Now we’re voting to take it back. For what reasons?” Rife asked. “That is being an Indian giver.”
Moise explained that the goal was to work toward repayment as part of a possible agreement involving ASL and UPike.
Rife objected to giving the school money and then seeking its return. Rocklick District Supervisor Craig Stiltner responded that he had opposed the assistance from the beginning.
“I did not vote to give it to them,” Stiltner said.
Stiltner said reports of improved enrollment reinforced his belief that the county should pursue repayment. He said he understood returning the money to be part of the arrangement when the assistance was approved.
“I’m all about waiting to see how the merger goes. But I’m also about getting the county’s money back,” Stiltner said.
Stiltner also questioned spending at the school, referring to what he described as money being passed around. No specific expenditures were identified during the discussion.
Moise said the agreement contained a provision addressing repayment as the school’s numbers improved. He said that obligation could be incorporated into a possible agreement with UPike.
Stiltner said he supported an arrangement that would stabilize ASL and prevent another request for millions of dollars from the county.
“Anything that this county doesn’t have to give them $3.4 million again. I’m all about that,” Stiltner said. “I’m also about getting our money back.”
He said seeking repayment was a matter of asking the law school to fulfill its agreement.
“I’m just asking them to uphold their end,” Stiltner said.
Adkins said he believed the board had been misled when it approved the assistance, noting that a U-Pike partnership was not part of the situation presented at that time. He said that was another reason he believed the money should be returned.
Moise described a repayment plan as a goal of the discussions, rather than a completed arrangement.
With the reimbursement item tabled, the board left the matter unresolved while discussions about ASL’s future and a possible U-Pike partnership continue.
