Board OKs severance for Haskin
Residents voice concerns about city manager change
TEXARKANA, Ark. — The aftermath of last week’s city manager change played out during a meeting of the Board of Directors on Monday, with Mayor Allen Brown introducing three related measures based on legal advice, citizens voicing their concerns and Interim City Manager David Haak publicly circulating memos to city employees indicating changes he intends to make.
Haskin resigned unexpectedly Thursday during a surprise meeting of the city Board of Directors, which met with him behind closed doors for almost an hour before voting four to three to accept his resignation and appoint Haak.
Brown began the meeting calling for a vote to add three items to the meeting’s agenda based, he said, on legal advice from the Arkansas Municipal League, an organization that supports city governments with services such as legal representation and insurance coverage. The Board agreed and subsequently approved all three, with Ward 3 Director Steven Hollibush absent.
With the first, the Board agreed to pay outgoing City Manager Kenny Haskin eight months’ salary as severance pay. An amendment to the motion by Ward 2 Director Laney Harris specified the payment would be made according to the incremental schedule in Haskin’s employment contract, rather than as a lump sum. Brown voted no and said after the meeting he did so because he disagreed
with how the entire process has been handled.
The second required Haak to give the city clerk all information necessary for Haak to be bonded by the Municipal League, as are many city emplyees, to protect the city from potential legal liability. It passed unanimously.
The third, also approved unanimously, asserted that the Board alone is responsible for hiring a new city manager and the city’s personnel department would immediately enlist the Municipal League’s help in identifying candidates and beginning the hiring process.
During the meeting’s citizen communication time a number of residents, including two former Board members, spoke about the city manager move, with all but one decrying the process’ lack of transparency and warning that it could move the city backward.
Local business owner David Peavy expressed concern about the city’s credibility and asked for an explanation of why Haskin left.
“I want to understand if this is going to be an avalanche or if this is just the start. Are we going to have a new police chief next? Are we going to have a new public works director? Are we going to have a new fire marshal? Is this just the start? Can anyone tell me originally that that this was the necessary thing? As citizens, we do not understand what has happened,” he said.
Restaurant owner and city Advertising and Promotion Commissioner Sandy Varner urged caution and raised the possibility of lawsuits against the city.
“I think that we are dancing on a very fine line on where we have come in the last five years as a city and as a community. … I feel like we are taking a giant step backwards and erasing the great strides that this city and you as directors have taken in the last five years. And I caution you about going forward. I think even legally we may be setting ourselves up for some things. I really don’t want to go down to where everybody is suing the city again over things that have happened. And I think that we are there,” she said.
Former Board member Terri Peavy asked how Haskin’s treatment would affect how future city manager candidates willingness to work here.
“Several of you that won positions in November said we want open and transparent government, and what we are seeing is not that. And if I was a city manager applying for this position and I learned what had been done to the former city manager, without any reasons being given that I’m aware of ? And just to be fired at the drop — not fired, but resigned — at the drop of a hat, could that happen to me if I did something to make somebody mad and they waited and waited until they could get even? And how long would that be?” she said.
Resident John Womack said he thought the change would be good for the city.
“We had an election. The citizens spoke. We have two new city council members. We have a path forward, and where a lot of people are negative, I think it’s very positive. So there’s two sides to every story. It’s kind of like a divorce. You listen to, ‘Oh, it’s terrible.’ Listen to the other side. We have a great opportunity,” he said.
Former Board member Linda Teeters raised questions about copies of a pair of memos from Haak to city employees available to those who attended the meeting.
One memo directs City Hall to be reopened to the public 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays after pandemic-related closure in recent months and for all phone lines to be answered during open hours.
The second, more lengthy memo spells out a top-to-bottom review of city personnel, operations and payroll, indicates that the Board will not have to file Freedom of Information requests to receive public information, and announces the formation of a citizen’s advisory board “that will become very involved in reviewing City operations.”
Teeters questioned whether any city employees had seen the memos before the meeting and what their repercussions could be. She too warned that the city could be regressing.
“If the citizens are seeing policy changes before they (city employees) are, what are the consequences? … We have done such wonderful things in the last few years. I would hate to see that erased because of ulterior motives, revenge-seeking people and dirty tactics. As somebody said, what happens when y’all get mad at the next city manager? What happens if they don’t do your bidding? You just go into executive session and have them fired if you get four votes? …
“Some of these policies, I see are encouraging a very toxic work environment for our city. And it breaks my heart that the city employees may fear day to day whether or not they’re going to have a job. The public sees this. We do not want to return to a circus. I hope we get some integrity on this board,” she said.