Counterclaim filed against pay parity lawsuit

Group wants original suit dismissed and pay parity ruled unconstitutional

Pay parity for Texarkana, Ark., Police Department is unconstitutional, and a taxpayer-initiated lawsuit alleging city mismanagement of funds for it should be dismissed, according to a recently filed counterclaim.

The original suit’s plaintiffs are 84 Arkansas-side taxpayers; Mayor Ruth Penney-Bell and City Manager Kenny Haskin are listed as defendants.

The counterclaim, filed Friday, disputes many of the suit’s assertions and asks Miller County Circuit Court to dismiss it. The defendants seek a ruling that pay parity is unconstitutional and in violation of state law because Texarkana, Texas, cannot establish salaries on behalf of Texarkana, Ark. The effect would be to sever the link between Texas-side and Arkansas-side police pay.

Specifically, the counterclaim cites Arkansas Code §14-51-304,

which states in full, “The city council or board shall from time to time fix the number of employees and the salaries to be drawn by each rank in the fire and police departments of its respective cities.”

In 1996, Texarkana, Ark., voters approved a quartersales tax to fund keeping TAPD officers’ salaries equal to their Texasside counterparts’, which is known as pay parity.

Filed last December, the citizens’ lawsuit claims the city has mismanaged sales tax revenues collected for that purpose and failed to achieve parity. The suit asks for a judgment that the pay-parity ordinance “means the special sales and use tax set aside is for the periodic incremental salary increases of the TAPD” and seeks “all relief allowed by law and equity.”

Though TAPD Chief Robert Harrison is a vocal advocate for pay parity, he has stated that he has nothing to do with the suit, and he is not named as one of the plaintiffs.

Texarkana, Ark., Fire Department is not involved in the suit, though a separate, voter-approved quartersales tax is meant to fund firefighter pay parity. It is unclear what any outcome of the suit would mean for TAFD.

Haskin and other officials will not comment on the suit, referring questions to the city’s legal counsel in the case, attorney Ralph Ohm with Arkansas Public Entities Risk Management Association. Ohm could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday, but in a previous interview argued that the parity sales taxes have not been misused; they simply are insufficient to fund pay raises.

“The flip side is we are using every bit of the sales tax to get to the parity; there’s just not enough sales tax there to accomplish that. So we haven’t misappropriated the money. We’ve used it for its intended purpose; there’s just not enough of it to satisfy that intended purpose. … In fact they have had to supplement that line item to try to get to parity. … It is actually causing strain on the other offices,” he said.

In an email Wednesday, plaintiffs’ attorney Brent Langdon argued that the sales tax should have been sufficient to fund pay parity, but the city must have spent that revenue elsewhere. He also questioned why suddenly the city considers parity unconstitutional.

“We filed a petition requesting that the Court interpret the statute passed by the voters and order the City to implement that interpretation. Instead of arguing for an interpretation that the City agrees with, the City is asking the Court to determine that it is unconstitutional. Why has it not been unconstitutional since 1996, while the City collected the tax the voters designated for police pay parity? If it is found unconstitutional, how does that end? Fewer police officers, fewer fire fighters, slower response times,” he said.

On Twitter: @RealKarlRichter