PB residency statute survives council vote

Words heated during debate over proposal

PINE BLUFF — After a fierce and lengthy debate Monday night, the Pine Bluff City Council voted down a proposed ordinance that would have abolished an existing law requiring department heads, including the fire and police chiefs, to live within city limits.

Several times during the meeting, Pine Bluff Mayor Debe Hollingsworth slammed her gavel to restore order among aldermen.

Hollingsworth also made generous use of her gavel to silence some members of the standing-room-only audience.

Toward the end of the debate, Alderman Lloyd Holcomb — visibly angry — yelled: “We have been arguing every meeting about this same issue, and it [just doesn’t make any] damn sense!

“We need to work together as a council for this city. We are acting like fools, and I am sick of this!”

The gallery roared with applause.

Monday’s meeting was at least the seventh one this year with discussion about the residency law.

The issue of enforcing it first came up after Hollingsworth appointed former Pine Bluff Police Department Lt. Jeff Hubanks as interim chief on Jan. 1, her first day in office. Hubanks lives 19 miles outside Pine Bluff in Cleveland County.

At least five department heads, including Hubanks, live outside Pine Bluff. Two are exempt from the 2000 residency ordinance because they worked for the city before the requirement became law. Hubanks would be exempt if the city considers the chief as a “uniformed police officer.”

The council voted 6-2 against repealing the residency ordinance.

Holcomb, who voted against Monday’s repeal, and several other aldermen said they believe that the police and fire chiefs should reside in Pine Bluff because they are emergency officials, though Hollingsworth challenged their opinions by saying that “they are not the first responders to a scene.”

Alderman Charles Boyd, who also voted against the repeal, said he believes that residents “expect their chiefs of police to live inside the city. I have had numerous calls from people telling me that.”

Boyd also said that other department heads should also be required to live in Pine Bluff.

“It just doesn’t speak well for a city to have people in those positions living outside the city,” he said. “Taxpayers have the right to have these people available to them.”

Before she took office, the city had already made a practice of employing some department heads even though they lived outside Pine Bluff,

Hollingsworth has said several times in public meetings.

The mayor also pointed out in the past that Hubanks isn’t the first interim police or fire chief to reside outside city limits. Interim Police Chief Collier Hill, who served the city in 2010, along with two interim fire chiefs — Skipper Hipp, who served in 2007, and Jim Brown, who served in 2009 — all lived outside Pine Bluff.

In reference to Hubanks, the mayor has contended that a 2002 ordinance allowing uniformed police officers to live outside Pine Bluff supersedes the 2000 residency ordinance.

Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney Kyle Hunter views Hubanks as a uniformed officer.

In a letter addressed to Aldermen Glen Brown, George Stepps and Thelma Walker — who last month asked Hunter to decide whether Hollingsworth was breaking the law by not enforcing the 2000 residency law — the prosecutor said that Hubanks is in fact a uniformed officer and can be legally employed as chief of police in accordance with the 2002 ordinance. Hunter decided not to prosecute the mayor.

Hunter had said the residency ordinance had not been followed by previous administrations.

Pine Bluff City Attorney Althea Hadden-Scott wrote an opinion issued in January that Hubanks’ employment should fall under the 2000 ordinance since he holds an administrative position within the city.

“Although it is true that the [interim] chief is a police officer in the most basic sense, it is readily apparent that the position of the [interim] chief of police is administrative,” she wrote.

Arkansas Municipal League attorney Mark Hayes told aldermen in a special meeting March 22 that the city is opening itself up to “multiple lawsuits” if something isn’t done to either enforce or repeal the residency ordinance.

“The bottom line is that you have a practice that differs from your ordinances,” Hayes told aldermen last month. “The law says X, and you do Y. You need to do something to correct this now. This is an opportunity to set a new course. Working together is the only way to put a city forward.”

Alderman Bill Brumett, who sponsored the repeal ordinance, said he wants to see aldermen “go back to the drawing board … we have to start with a clean slate. We need to repeal [the 2000 ordinance] and just start over. That was my intent with this legislation.”

After the meeting, Hollingsworth said she plans to call aldermen together for a special session to further discuss the issue.

“I just hope we can get together and discuss this and get something done,” Hollingsworth said. “This issue has got to be put to rest.”