Board repeals Area C, D annexations

The Hot Springs Board of Directors averted a special election on ordinances it adopted in December to annex two Lake Hamilton-adjacent areas, voting to repeal the measures Tuesday night rather than set an election date.

The Concerned Citizens Group objected to the repeal and asked the board to hold the election. Several of the group’s leaders said a referendum would show the lack of support among city voters for the board’s decision to annex Enclave Study Areas C and D during the final board meeting of 2016.

The group collected more than 6,000 signatures in support of referendum petitions on the two ordinances, forcing the board to schedule a special election. Several board members cited the cost of an election, which the Garland County Election Commission said could be as much as $25,000, in opting for repeal over referendum. With only city voters, and not those residing in the enclaves, eligible to vote, the board said a referendum wouldn’t enfranchise the people most affected.

They also said during the run-up to the election, which wouldn’t have been held until May 9 at the earliest, the board’s attention would be distracted from other matters it needs

to address. George Pritchett of the Concerned Citizens Group said he planned to sue for an election, telling the directors the repeal was more of a face-saving maneuver than one done in the public’s interest.

Pritchett’s two lawsuits challenging the city’s January

2016 annexation of Enclave Study Area B were submitted to the Arkansas Supreme Court last week, the clerk of the court said Wednesday. Justices could issue an opinion affirming or overturning the lower court rulings or an order indicating they won’t review the cases as early as today, the clerk said. Both cases were dismissed in Garland County Circuit Court last year.

“We signed a petition for an election,” Pritchett told directors. “We didn’t sign to come up here so y’all can decide that you’re going to get beat in an election. … You need to know how many people in this city don’t want this.”

District 4 Director Larry Williams told The Sentinel Record Wednesday that he felt vindicated by the board’s decision to repeal the Area D ordinance after he cast the lone vote against it in December. Williams was part of the 6-0 majority that annexed Area C, but he told the board Tuesday night that Area D “was an enclave too far.”

Williams told the board in December that annexing the

311 acres between Weston Road and Lake Hamilton that comprise Area D would impose costs on the city’s street fund that directors weren’t considering. Williams said Wednesday the Area C and D ordinances were rushed through ahead of legislation filed to prohibit municipal governing bodies from annexing enclaves.

He also said he objected to considering additional annexations in light of litigation challenging the city’s Area B annexation.

“I felt like the board overreacted when it hurried through those enclave annexations,” said Williams, who made the motion Tuesday night to amend the ordinance setting a special election for Area D to one repealing the annexation. “They had a public hearing on all three in one night, and a vote on them at the following meeting.

“I was always under the impression that we were going to wait until all legal issues were out of the way until we proceeded with anymore annexations. I was caught off guard by the board putting it on the agenda in December. I didn’t like it.”

District 3 Director Becca Clark motioned to amend the ordinance setting a special election for Area C to one repealing the annexation. She and Williams’ amendments were unanimously adopted 6-0, as were the amended motions for repeal. District 5 Director Rick Ramick wasn’t present Tuesday night.

Mayor Ruth Carney allowed Pritchett and others to make public comments while the meeting was still being televised, going against a board policy restricting the public comment period until after meetings are concluded. Several directors objected, but Carney said the speakers deserved to be heard on air.

“I will not, as long as I’m mayor, prohibit them from having a voice, televised,” she told the directors. “I will not prohibit the citizens of our city from having a voice on these issues we’ve been struggling with.”

Williams motioned to adjourn the meeting before more people could address the board on air. He was seconded by District 2 Director Elaine Jones. Carney initially asked for a voice vote on the motion but ended up taking a roll-call vote, of which she was the lone dissenter.

Several speakers questioned how directors could coalesce so quickly around the repeal measures given the lack of debate in public, claiming directors were making decisions outside the confines of public meetings and violating the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

Carney claimed as much in November at a special meeting of the Garland County Quorum Court, telling justices of the peace that directors were meeting without public notice and that an ethics violation needed to be filed.

There was no mention of repeal when directors met Feb. 28 to set Tuesday night’s agenda. Clark told The Sentinel-Record Wednesday that she indicated her intent to initiate a repeal to City Manager David Frasher and City Attorney Brian Albright soon after the referendum petitions were certified last month.

Williams said Wednesday that repeal was discussed at the board’s Feb. 17 retreat, and that he spoke about undoing the annexations with Clark, Carney, Frasher, District 6 Director Randy Fale and activist attorney Cliff Jackson prior to Tuesday night’s meeting.

“I was county judge for 16 years, so I’m used to picking up the phone and talking to other elected officials in the community and state about topics of interest,” Williams told The Sentinel-Record. “Things aren’t decided over the phone, but they don’t miraculously spring forth without somebody initiating them. If somebody needs to be blamed, I’m always happy to step up and take blame.”

Fale took exception to Bob Driggers of the Concerned Citizens Group alleging that directors preordain board decisions during meetings convened outside of the formal proceedings held the first and third Tuesday of every month.

“Mr. Driggers, do you have any proof about these allegations of yours?” Fale asked. “Because you’re shooting your mouth off pretty freely here. I don’t think you have any proof, because I’ve not been a party to them. So I don’t know what you’re talking about, but quite frankly I’m getting tired of you spilling out information that’s untrue.”

Clark said Wednesday that directors don’t discuss votes or orchestrate how they’re going to vote before meetings.

The Arkansas FOIA Handbook states there’s no “bright line ” rule that a meeting of two members of the same body constitutes a public meeting under the FOIA statute, but “a violation is most likely to occur if the two members meet with other individuals concerning matters on which the whole governing body will foreseeably act.”

Numerous attorney general opinions on the issue cite the Mayor and City Council of El Dorado v. El Dorado Broadcasting Corp. case that came before the state Supreme Court in 1976. The high court affirmed a lower-court ruling that held the FOIA statute applies to a meeting of council members not constituting a quorum if the members present, discuss or take action “on any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken.”

The court said in its opinion that lawmakers inclusion of “informal meetings” in the FOIA statute showed the Legislature intended for the public meeting provision to apply to instances of council members meeting informally to discuss city business.

“We can think of no reason for the (FOIA statute) specifying its applicability to informal meetings of governmental bodies unless it was intended to cover informal but unofficial group meetings for the discussion of governmental business as distinguished from those contacts by the individual members that occur in the daily lives of every public official,” the opinion said.

The court said it didn’t interpret the statute as applying to a chance or planned meeting of any two members of a city council.