Washington County panel favors ordinance restrictions on officials

FAYETTEVILLE — A tie-breaking vote was needed for a Washington County committee to recommend limiting how justices of the peace can bring items before the Quorum Court.

The County Services Committee split on the initial vote for the proposal, which requires all ordinances to go through a committee before being placed on the agenda for the Quorum Court and prohibits any from being raised for a second time within a year after being voted down initially.

The committee vote was two in favor — Robert Dennis and Jim Wilson, two opposed — Suki Highers and Evelyn Rios Stafford, and two abstaining — Sean Simons and Butch Pond.

Sam Duncan, committee chairman, cast the deciding vote to recommend send the proposal on to the Quorum Court. Duncan had earlier declined to recognize Stafford when she attempted to table the proposal until April, calling instead for the vote.

The justices of the peace had differing views on the need for the proposal. Lisa Ecke, justice of the peace for District 6, said requiring ordinances to go through committees gives more time for discussion and for “fine-tuning” before being placed on the agenda for the Quorum Court.

Eva Madison, justice of the peace for District 9, said the changes are meant to “silence the minority party” on the Quorum Court. Madison is a Democrat, one of five Democrats serving with 10 Republicans on the Quorum Court.

Madison said the ordinance was drafted as a response to her proposal to set out how the county should spend about $4.5 million in federal CARES Act money. That proposal was introduced at the February Quorum Court meeting and remains on the agenda after failing to garner enough votes to advance.

“I brought an ordinance to the court and y’all didn’t like it,” Madison said. “Now you’re trying to force all ordinances to a committee, where you strategically have the majority.”

Madison also questioned whether the proposal is constitutional in prohibiting an ordinance from being reintroduced within a year’s time.

“The only thing this is going to do is buy the county an expensive lawsuit,” she said.

Highers, justice of the peace for District 11, said the proposal was unnecessary.

“I don’t understand why we need this change,” she said. “I feel like we’re trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.”

The proposal as passed by the committee was amended twice during the meeting, once to exempt ordinances for approval or denial of conditional use permits from the requirement of going through a committee and a second time to include language repealing sections of any previously approved ordinance in conflict with the new ordinance. Stafford proposed an amendment to strike the ban on reintroducing ordinances within a year but that proposal was defeated.

Simons, justice of the peace for District 3, said he supported the idea of bringing ordinances through committees. He also said the amendments, questions and changes suggested at Monday’s meeting made him favor holding the proposal for more discussion.

“I’d like to see this tabled for tonight, refashioned and brought back another time,” he said.