LRSD’s hopefuls for board speak out

Forum draws 16 of 19 candidates

More than a dozen candidates for election Nov. 3 to a reestablished Little Rock School Board introduced themselves this week by answering public forum questions on topics such as community schools, taxes and services for non-English speakers.

Nineteen candidates in all are running for the nine open seats on the board that is being re-created after more than five years of state control of the district during which there was no locally elected board.

Sixteen of the 19 participated in at least part of the three-hour forum Thursday night that was conducted — in a change from tradition — on the Zoom online meeting platform. The three others were invited but had conflicting obligations, according to hosts Clarice and Kwami Abdul-Bey, the event moderators.

The candidates, who are running for election from their zones and not districtwide, made some of their strongest comments at the forum on a proposal to extend the levy of 12.4 property-tax mills as a way to finance about $204 million in school construction and repair projects. The mills

are already levied and generating money for the district. They are to expire in 2033 but the proposal if passed by voters would extend the levy to 2051. A property owner’s annual taxes wouldn’t increase, but they would be paid for a greater number of years.

Arkansas Education Secretary Johnny Key, who currently acts in place of a Little Rock School board, has put the proposed tax rate extension on the November ballot for voters to decide. Some of the candidates felt that the proposal was unacceptable because it came from Key, who is not elected by the district residents. Others said that the possible benefit to students was a factor to consider.

Tommy Branch Jr., who is running from Zone 3, said he doesn’t like taxes any more than anyone else but “if it’s for the kids … we need to do what is right for our kids and our future going forward.”

Evelyn Callaway, also running for Zone 3, said she wanted to study the proposal further.

Michael Sanders, also from the zone, said there are needs in the district — such as infrastructure and software needs — that will require some revenue. If a study of the district’s finances shows “that there is a gap, I do think we should have to make a push to the community and pass a millage.”

Leigh Ann Wilson, who is unopposed in Zone 4, said the district has financial needs, but she was frustrated by Key’s placing the item on the ballot when a new board is about to be elected. She called it a “further overreach by the state” that she does not support.

Stuart Mackey Sr., a candidate from Zone 5, emphasized that the proposal is not a new tax but a continuation of what is already in place. An earlier facilities assessment of the district showed that there is more than $300 million in work needed in the district, including a replacement for the McClellan High building.

The need has probably gotten larger, he said.

“The longer we wait, the higher the price. You can’t wait to fix a leaky roof because then you have a leaky roof and a bad floor. I think it’s a great opportunity to take care of our schools so our schools can take care of our kids,” he said.

Ali Noland, also a candidate from Zone 5, said the proposal “sounds like something good for our district” but called the timing of the tax measure — in the midst of a pandemic, economic uncertainty and frustration with the delivery of education — “terrible.” She said she is undecided on her support of it until she can hear more from district patrons.

Vicki Hatter, one of four candidates from Zone 6, strongly objected to the tax plan being placed on the ballot by someone other than an elected school board — which she said was an act that led to the defeat of a nearly identical tax proposal in the district in 2017.

Lou Jackson, also from Zone 6, agreed with some of the others.

“It is necessary. It is a need. But is the timing right?” Jackson asked. “We are in a pandemic, people. Let’s really think about it.”

Chris Kingsby, also from Zone 6, said that if Key and Superintendent Mike Poore really want the tax extension, they would have sought public input first.

“When you completely shut out the community and when you tell them their voices don’t matter … then you come to them and want their tax dollars? I won’t be telling anyone to support it until we have a locally elected board that has local power,” Kingsby said.

Ryan Davis of Zone 7 said he was part of the effort to defeat the millage extension three years ago and that it was defeated across the city “because it was put on the table in bad faith.” He said he believed the same about the current proposal. He also questioned how the money might be used in a district that has a lot of older buildings as well as a demand for new buildings on the city’s west side.

“I’ll trust that the voters will make the decisions,” he said.

Norma Johnson, also of Zone 7 and a former Little Rock board member, agreed that the pandemic timing is bad but that the matter will be on the ballot and, if it is passed, “hopefully we will have nine members in place who can be good stewards over that.”

It will be the duty of the nine-member board to ensure that the schools get what they really need wherever they are, she said.

Greg Adams, a former Little Rock School Board member who is running for Zone 8, said he was inclined to hold his nose and vote for it because of the benefits it can provide to students.

It’s not taxation without representation, Adams said, “but a proposal without representation.”

“If we approve this refinancing it will be because voters approved it,” he said.

“What the voters decide will be what happens,” he also said, adding that the elected board has some authority to decide how the money is used but is legally obligated to build a replacement for Cloverdale Middle School on the old McClellan site on Geyer Springs Road.

Kieng Vang-Dings, a candidate for the Zone 9 position, said she would vote against the millage although she knows the money would be helpful.

“I think the school board needs to be in on the decision. I think there needs to be more dialogue and conversations need to be had surrounding this decision,” she said. “We need a conversation about where the money is going. We all need to be on the same page.”

The candidate forum was organized by the Arkansas Peace and Justice Memorial Movement, which partnered with the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the Urban League of Arkansas, Indivisible LRCA, Grassroots Arkansas, the Dunbar Historic Neighborhood Association and Arkansas United.

The forum was recorded and is posted on the Arkansas Peace and Justice Memorial Movement Facebook page.