Searcy's Vehicle Fleet

Under fire from the Arkansas GOP and private citizens, Governor Mike Beebe and other Arkansas officials and employees have been criticized this year for a general failure to properly document the use of government vehicles (and in cases like Mark Wilcox, willfully misusing public vehicles). As a result of this scrutiny, Governor Beebe has pushed for the assembly of the "largest and most comprehensive collection of Arkansas state-vehicle information ever assembled." In addition, he has issued an executive order that "creates specific classifications detailing which employees will be assigned state vehicles, and vacates previous commuter exemptions." He hopes these measures will help "determine the proper use of state vehicles."

After all this work, what would our Governor's reaction be to learn his home town's city government also has some record-keeping deficiencies with its own vehicle fleet? As reported in an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article on July 25, 2010 (full article available here), the state's bookkeeping for over 8000 vehicles is a daunting task to tackle. On the other hand, Searcy has far fewer vehicles to track, and the city should have an easier time keeping good records on them.

Searcy keeps a list of its vehicles by department. However, the city does not have records on the license plate numbers or a list of what city employee has each vehicle. In an email from City Clerk Peggy Meads to a Searcy resident, she says vehicle "Assignments are made to Departments, with the Department Head having discretion over specific use of the vehicle." This decentralized system poses numerous questions about the accountability of our city government. Some obvious questions include:

• Without more detailed records, how does the city manage license plate renewals?
• How are department heads held accountable for the condition and lifespan of each vehicle?
• How do our elected officials ensure the vehicles are being used in accordance with state law?

Deficit Spending "or Raise Revenues"

According to a March 26-28 USA Today/Gallup poll, the top four issues in the 2010 elections will be:

1. The economy
2. Healthcare
3. Unemployment
4. The federal budget deficit

Financial matters impact all of us, and in the interviews of local candidates in the Daily Citizen the past few weeks, many candidates have talked about their ideas to help grow the Searcy economy.

Many of us are also concerned about government spending and deficits. President Barack Obama has pushed for increases in government spending to stimulate the economy. However, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress said in a past report on government spending,

"Economic growth is created over the long run by a labor force which possesses the incentive to work and produce, and by entrepreneurs who have incentives to invest in capital stock. Through excessive spending, the government negatively affects the long-run economic growth rate of a free economy. Government spending reduces labor force participation, increases unemployment, and reduces productivity."

The benefits and harmful effects of government spending continue to be debated across the country. Those of us who do not live within our means (spend more than we earn) will eventually end up broke. Governments face the same fate if they spend more than they receive except for one key difference: All levels of government can levy taxes on us to make up for their poor spending habits.

In our previous post on the growth of spending by the Searcy government and attempts to raise taxes to pay for that spending, we discussed the push over the past eight years to grow city spending. We have added more sources to that post. Let's look at some of the information from the tax time line in more detail.

Deficit Spending
Deficit budgets over the past five years have grown the city's spending as one year's deficit spending becomes the next year's "budgeted" spending.

In the December 2005 and January 2006 debate over the 2006 city budget, the City Council and Mayor Belinda LaForce disagreed over the 2006 budget because it proposed deficit spending. In a December 21, 2005, article in the Daily Citizen, Mariea Grayson reported that "LaForce's budget remains $268,482.08 in the red." The article quotes Mayor LaForce's view of the 2006 budget,

"'I want to appropriate money from the reserves to take care of the deficit.' LaForce told council members."

"'In the first of 2005, they appropriated $190,000 or more out of the reserves,' LaForce said, 'All I'm asking is they do the same thing in 2006.'"

"LaForce said there are only two options left to the city. 'We either pull it out of the reserves or raise revenues,' she said."

Mayor LaForce proposed this deficit budget December 13, December 20, January 10, and January 11 and insisted on using the reserves rather than cut spending. The budget passed January 11, 2006, with Mayor LaForce casting the tie-breaking vote. Mariea Grayson reported in a January 12, 2006, Daily Citizen article,

"Searcy will have to make up $268,482 with reserve funds or other unknown income."

"LaForce said she doesn't understand the problem the council is having appropriating money from unappropriated funds to cover the budget."

Mayor LaForce proposed deficit budgets for both 2005 and 2006 using reserve funds (the city's saved up, unallocated money from more "revenues" coming in than anticipated) to make up the difference. Mayor LaForce repeated this practice of using reserve funds with the 2008 budget. According to a December 13, 2007, article "Will 2008 be in the Red?" in the Daily Citizen, her proposed budget called for using $300,000 from reserve funds. The initial 2010 budget Mayor LaForce proposed called for deficit spending. From January 2009 to September 2010, the city's reserves have declined from $2.267 million to $1.201 million according to the city's financial statements.

"Or Raise Revenues"
In the 2006 budget debate, Mayor LaForce said the city only had two options to make her budget work, deficit spending "or raise revenues." In December 2004 as the City Council passed her deficit budget, she called for a tax increase (December 16, 2004, Daily Citizen article). This call became a proposal in April 2005 for "a sales tax that begins as one full cent, then drops to one half cent after one year" (May 1, 2005, Daily Citizen article). The city council rejected this proposal in favor of "a nine month, short-term, 1 percent sales tax" "to construct the new station" (June 21, 2007, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article).

After casting the deciding vote on a 2006 deficit budget, Mayor LaForce called for "a permanent sales tax increase or increase in city service fees for 2006" in her State of the City address (February 16, 2006, Daily Citizen article). In June 2007, Warren Watkins wrote an article for the Daily Citizen that listed Mayor LaForce's proposals for raising city revenues:

• "a permanent one-cent city sales tax"
• "a one cent tax, half of which sunsets after five years"
• "one cent that sunsets incrementally over 10 years"
• "one cent that sunsets after 10 years"
• "one cent that sunsets after five years"
• "a bond finance issue for capital and street projects, half of which sunsets at payoff"
• "increasing current fees" for city services such as licenses, inspections, garbage collection, etc.
• "increasing property millage up to five mills" from the "current rate dedicated to the city" of "0.8 mills"
• "raising impact fees for infrastructure improvements"
• "beginning an Advertising and Promotion sales tax"
• "a county-wide one cent sales tax in which the city would receive a portion"

The proposal the City Council put the voters in 2007 was "the levy of one percent gross receipts tax within the City of Searcy which shall expire after three years," which passed and was set for a September 11 special election in the June 26, 2007 City Council meeting. In the "Sales tax hike fails" article in the September 12, 2007, Daily Citizen, Warren Watkins reported that the voters rejected this tax by a 2-1 margin.

After a new group of aldermen were elected in 2008, Mayor LaForce then turned to the A&P tax proposal she had originally made in June 2007, which the City Council passed 5-3 in May 2009. This tax of 1 percent on all prepared food and 3 percent on all short-term (less than 30 days) rental of accommodations was rejected by Searcy voters in April 2010 after a battle between citizens and the city government to allow a vote and after Mayor LaForce stated in her March 19, 2009 morning radio appearance on News Talk 99.1 that the A&P tax would not be enough for capital projects like a convention center, which would require an additional sales tax increase.

The Chicken and the Egg
The classic philosophical causality question of the chicken and the egg involves trying to determine which came first. Some causality questions are easier to solve. In the past five years, deficit budgets were followed by tax proposals enough times that it is clear which came first.

Political Ad for Searcy Incumbant Mayor May Have Violated Federal Law

A paid political ad for Belinda LaForce was published in the Sunday, October 24, 2010, issue of the Daily Citizen. In the ad, eleven of Searcy's highest employees endorsed Mayor Belinda LaForce as she campaigns for a third term as Searcy's mayor. This effort by Mayor LaForce to show her employees publicly supporting her campaign in their official capacities as department heads may violate Federal law. The Hatch Act Originally passed in 1939, the Hatch Act is a Federal law that prohibits certain Federal employees and state and local employees "who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants" from improperly using their positions for their own or others political gain. Since the Searcy Police Department (SPD) has been "financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants," the prohibitions in the Hatch Act apply to members of the SPD, including Chief of Police Kyle Osborne. Was the Hatch Act Violated? In Sunday's paid political ad, Kyle Osborne is not just endorsing Mayor LaForce as a private citizen. He is endorsing her in his professional capacity as the Chief of Police with 28 years service. His signature is included in the ad. In a document prepared by Larry H. James, the General Counsel for the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) for FOP lodges across the country, Mr. James issues information and advice for law enforcement officials to help them follow the Hatch Act. Regarding the question of who must comply with the Hatch Act, the document says,

October 24 LaForce Political Ad in the Daily Citizen

"The prohibitions in the Hatch Act specifically apply to officers or employees of any “state or local agency.” State or local agency means “...the Executive Branch of a state, municipality, or other political subdivision of a state, or an agency or department thereof” 5 U.S.C.S. § 1501(2)."

It further clarifies that financing with virtually any Federal funding brings someone under the authority of the Hatch Act:

"The relevant analysis concerning the employee’s contact with federal funds is whether the employee “as a normal and foreseeable incident to her principal job or position...performs duties in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants...” Special Counsel v. Williams 56 M.S.P.R. 277 (1993)."

So, it is abundantly clear that Chief Osborne must comply with the Hatch Act. He is not permitted to:

• "Allow one’s name or likeness to be used in campaign literature in the police officer’s professional capacity;
• Host a fundraiser for a political candidate and recruit attendees using the officer’s official title (however, a spouse who is not covered under this Act may host such a fundraiser and the officer may attend, but may not personally solicit contributions to the fundraiser);
• Allow the officer’s name to appear on an invitation to a fundraiser as a sponsor of the fundraiser or as a point of contact for the fundraiser;
• Engage in campaigning during working hours;
• Use any official authority for influence for political purposes, including using the officer’s official title or authority to coerce individuals to participate in political activity;
• Run for any elected partisan office;
• Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated individual volunteer services from a subordinate for any political purpose."

However, Mayor LaForce and Chief Osborne have used his "name or likeness to be used in campaign literature in the police officer’s professional capacity" in her paid political ad. How could Mayor LaForce with "34 years of municipal experience" and Chief Osborne with his 28 years service overlook a Federal law passed in 1939? The repercussions for violating the Hatch Act include:

"When an officer violates the Hatch Act, an employer may use the Act as a basis for terminating the officer. Any time a federal agency learns that a state or local officer or employee may be violating the Act, it is required to report the matter to Special Counsel for the Merit Systems Protection Board."

Considering Mayor LaForce's past attempt to enforce a repealed ordinance and her actions that violated the Arkansas Constitution, this possible violation of the Hatch Act is disturbing. Since the ad was published in the Daily Citizen, surely they are investigating this matter and will report on it soon. If we cannot rely on our local paper to cover such an important issue this close to an election, who can we trust to provide the facts to the people of Searcy?

Mayor LaForce Consistently Pushed for Higher Spending, Higher Taxes

You may have heard radio ads for Mayor Belinda LaForce describing her past approach to managing Searcy's city finances. These ads do not tell the whole story.

The following time line lists Mayor Belinda LaForce's efforts to raise taxes and increase spending, including deficit spending, from December 2004 to the present. To place the time line in the context of an overall history of sales taxes in Searcy, we have started with the 1989 White County sales tax.

• 1989 - "Searcy does receive a percentage of White County's 1 percent sales-tax issue that was passed in 1989." (June 21, 2007 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)
• 1994 - "Searcy's first sales-tax issue was in 1994 at 0.5 percent, which removed the five mills of City General Property Tax and is still in place for general improvements and operation of the city. Residents pay only 0.8 of a mill of property tax, which is designated to police and fire pension and 1.2 mills of road taxes. All other property taxes paid in the city limits go toward county services and public schools." (June 21, 2007 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)
• December 2004 - As the City Council passed Mayor LaForce's 2005 budget, she called for a tax increase and announced she is continuing to work on a plan for the city's future (December 16, 2004 article in the Daily Citizen)
• April 2005 - Mayor LaForce unveiled her master plan for Searcy "built around civic development, with the center piece being the proposed construction of a 15 million dollar civic and aquatic center" (April 29 and May 1, 2005 articles in the Daily Citizen)
• May 2005 - The City Council rejected Mayor LaForce's master plan and its accompanying tax increase (May 12, 2005 article in the Daily Citizen)
• July 2005 - The people of Searcy passed "a ninemonth, short-term, 1 percent sales tax after the Central Fire Station and Courts building burned;" "It raised $3.7 million, which is being used to construct the new station. It also went to purchase a new fire engine and furnishings for the station." (June 21, 2007 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)
• December 2005-January 2006 -Mayor LaForce attempted to pass a deficit budget for 2006, and finally succeeded casting the tie-breaking vote to have a deficit budget for 2006 (December 21, 2005, January 7, 2006, and January 12, 2006 articles in the Daily Citizen; see also the January 10 and January 11 City Council Minutes from 2006)
• February 2006 - After designing and casting the deciding vote for a deficit budget for 2006, Mayor LaForce called for a permanent tax increase in her State of the City address (February 16, 2006 article in the Daily Citizen)
• July 2006 - The 1 percent Central Fire Station tax expired (July 1, 2006 article in the Daily Citizen)
• 2007 - Mayor Belinda LaForce proposed a 1 percent sales tax, which would have tripled the city sales tax from .5 to 1.5 percent; the City Council referred this tax to the people, and in the 2007 special election it was rejected by the voters
• December 2007 - Mayor LaForce proposed deficit spending for the 2008 budget (December 13, 2007 article in the Daily Citizen)
• 2009 - In May 2009, five aldermen (Arnett, Dixon, Sterling, English, and Chalenburg) passed an A&P tax of 1 percent on all prepared food and 3 percent on all short-term (less than 30 days) rental of accommodations
• December 2009 - Mayor LaForce proposed deficit spending for the 2010 budget
• 2010 - After collecting the tax illegally for six months, the tax was rejected by voters in a referendum election in April 2010; in her March 19, 2009 morning radio appearance on News Talk 99.1, Mayor LaForce said the A&P tax would not be enough for capital projects like a convention center, anyway; she said those projects would need an ADDITIONAL sales tax increase

Mayor Belinda LaForce has consistently increased spending despite efforts by the City Council to curtail her growth of the city expenditures. She has repeatedly proposed deficit spending, even casting the tie breaking vote to run the city with a deficit budget in 2006. She has also consistently proposed permanent sales tax increases to fund her big spending plans for Searcy.

Our local government should "live within its means" just like we do.

Mayor LaForce and Our Right to Vote

Sufficient Referendum Petitions Filed
On June 29, 2009, referendum petitions were submitted to the Searcy City Clerk Peggy Meads. Over 1200 Searcy citizens signed the petitions (approximately 1500 signatures were gathered, but only around a little more than 1200 were submitted), so they could exercise their right to vote for or against the A&P tax. In her capacity as City Clerk Meads "certified the sufficiency of signatures on the petitions." At that point, the A&P tax ordinance should have been held in abeyance (not enforced) and no tax collected until the A&P tax had been put to a vote.

Enforcing a Repealed Ordinance
A 1948 ordinance setting the deadline for the filing of referendum petitions at 30 days was the Mayor's and City Council's basis for denying us the right to vote. In a Daily Citizen article on June 16, 2009, Warren Watkins reported, "City Attorney Buck Gibson said the 1948 ordinance does apply to the A&P ordinance." However, later that day, Mayor Belinda LaForce researched the 1948 ordinance, and in her email to the City Attorney at 5:59 P.M., she reported the following conclusion:

"City adopted a new Code of Ordinances by Ordinance 519 (in attachment above)  I believe this Ordinance repealed all other ordinances except those specifically listed in the ordinance. There is nothing in that Code of Ordinances reflecting the City having a deadline on filing a referendum petition." (emphasis added)

Mayor LaForce acknowledged the 1948 Ordinance 303 was repealed by Ordinance 519 of 1969, and, therefore, it did NOT apply to the A&P ordinance. Still, Mayor LaForce enforced it anyway, ignored the 1200 voters and their petitions, and denied our referendum petition rights established in Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution. The city began illegally collecting the A&P tax on July 1, 2009.

The Judge Agrees With...Mayor LaForce
As a result of the City's disenfranchisement of the voters, a lawsuit was filed to compel the City government to hold an election on the A&P tax ordinance as required by the Arkansas Constitution. In a hearing on September 30, 2009, for that lawsuit, Judge Tom Hughes ruled the 1948 Ordinance 303 WAS REPEALED by Ordinance 519. He came to the same conclusion Mayor LaForce had come to three and half months earlier, except now, her decision to enforce the repealed ordinance was costing the city money to defend her and the City Council in the lawsuit.

The City Council Appears to Disregard the Court Ruling
After Judge Hughes' ruling, an alderman motioned in the October 2009 City Council meeting for the City to appropriate funds for a special election on the A&P tax ordinance. Alderman Steve Sterling objected and motioned that the subject be tabled indefinitely. Alderman Dale English seconded the motion, and it passed with the votes of Alderman Sterling, Alderman English, Alderman Mary Ann Arnett, Alderman Mike Chalenburg, and Alderman Jim Dixon. Why did the City Council continue to enforce the repealed Ordinance 303?

The October City Council Meeting: Behind the Scenes
On October 6, 2009, Mayor LaForce sent a note to City Attorney Buck Gibson. In it, she made the following points and statements:

• She acknowledged Judge Hughes denied both of the city's motions to dismiss the lawsuit seeking our right to vote
• She stated she wanted to appeal Judge Hughes' decision
• She concluded with the following statement: "I am sure Niblock is going to address moving forward to resolving this NOW by special election - I don't want the Council to be CONFUSED at the next course of action . I want to be sure I have a clear path(s) to present to them."

After Mayor LaForce sent this note outlining her planned response to Judge Hughes' ruling, Alderman Sterling made his motion in the October City Council meeting to table discussion of the A&P tax indefinitely.

Putting the Pieces Together
In November 2009, Greg Niblock deposed (they testified under oath with the testimony recorded for the trial) Mayor LaForce, City Clerk Meads, and four aldermen in preparation for further hearings in the lawsuit over our right to vote. Their depositions are below:

• LaForce Deposition
• Meads Deposition
• Arnett Deposition
• Dixon Deposition
• Sterling Deposition
• English Deposition

As you read these documents, several facts help us start to put the pieces together.

• Alderman Arnett, Alderman Dixon, and Alderman Sterling did not attend the September 30, 2009 hearing
• Alderman Dixon and Alderman Sterling testified that they believed Ordinance 303 was still in effect
• Alderman English and Mayor LaForce attended the September 30, 2009 hearing
• Mayor LaForce said she had no authority over the City Counci's decision about what to do about letting the people vote on the A&P tax if the petitions were filed in a timely manner (end of page 6 and beginning of page 7 of her deposition)

In regards to the September 30, 2009 hearing, Alderman Dale English testified:

"Niblock: So were you there when Judge Hughes made his ruling?
English: Right.
Niblock: Did you understand him to say the petitioners had 90 days?
English: Yes."

In contrast, Mayor LaForce testified:

"Niblock: Of course, we had the hearing relative to when the appropriate file date was in front of Judge Hughes. It's my recollection you were there, and he determined that the petitioners had 90 days. Is that your recollection?
LaForce: Well, no. Really from the determination of what was said at the hearing, it was very hard to determine whether or not he said the petitions were filed in - had the 90 day time period and were filed in a timely manner.
Niblock: So, you don't know if the petitions were filed timely or not?
LaForce: I don't think that's been determined yet as to whether or not the ordinance that we have in effect is null and void."

If there is any doubt about what Judge Hughes ruled, Warren Watkins reminded readers in a March 27, 2010 article in the Daily Citizen, "In September a judge ruled the petitions were filed in a timely manner."

The Right to Vote Finally Upheld
Not long after the depositions, Alderman Dixon made a motion in the December 2009 City Council meeting that the City hold an election on the A&P tax ordinance in April 2010, and this motion passed with Alderman Dixon as the only "no" vote. The citizens of Searcy were finally granted their right to vote after six months of Mayor LaForce and five Aldermen enforcing an ordinance that had been repealed in 1969.

What do the actions of Mayor Belinda LaForce's tell you about her view of our right to vote?

Ignoring the Arkansas Constitution "Needed to be Resolved"

In the June 2009 Searcy City Council meeting, Mayor Belinda LaForce recommended the appointment of the initial seven A&P Commission members. Some of those appointees were not qualified electors (they did not live in the city limits), which violated Ark. Const. art. 19, Sec. 3. In the meeting, the Council discussed Attorney General's opinion #2007-055. In this opinion, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel explained that the Arkansas Constitution requires Commission members to be qualified electors. In appointing the A&P Commission members, the Mayor and five of the aldermen (English, Chalenburg, Arnett, Dixon, and Sterling) ignored the Arkansas Constitution (the other three aldermen voted against the appointments).

Also in that June 2009 meeting, Mayor LaForce pushed through an ordinance changing the requirements to serve on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board from qualified electors of Searcy to qualified electors of Searcy or White County. This change finally brought past appointments of Board members who lived outside Searcy, like J.D. Yingling, in compliance with the City's ordinances. (Because the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is not a Commission with authority over spending, the requirements under the Arkansas Constitution for its members are not as strict.) 

Despite Mayor Belinda LaForce's and City Attorney Buck Gibson's assertions that the A&P Commission appointments were not unconstitutional, Aldermen Mary Ann Arnett and Mike Chalenburg requested a legal opinion on the issue from the Lightle Law Firm, and they received the law firm's response June 15, 2009. The City Attorney and the Mayor were copied on the response and received the legal opinion. In the opinion attached to that email, the Lightle Firm advised the city to obey the Arkansas Constitution and Attorney General's opinion.

In his response to the Lightle Law Firm, Alderman Chalenburg said, "It may be a disappointment to some, but we do need to abide by the law. We simply believe that if there is a good chance that the appointment process of the A&P Commission is suspect it would be better to deal with it now and not later...I also agree we need to abide by the law." However, Mayor Belinda LaForce, City Attorney Buck Gibson, Alderman Mary Ann Arnett, and Alderman Mike Chalenburg did not take action to correct this violation of the state constitution.

In a March 4, 2010, article in the Daily Citizen, Warren Watkins reported that the City Attorney and the Mayor said the following:

• "Three commissioners may have to resign if the city council follows their attorney’s advice. At a joint meeting of the Searcy Advertising and Tourism Promotions (A&P) Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board held Wednesday afternoon at city hall, Searcy City Attorney Buck Gibson advised those gathered that an amendment would need to be made to the council’s ordinance for the A&P tax and commission requiring A&P commissioners to be Searcy residents."
• "Mayor Belinda LaForce said she was concerned with the residency issue and noted it had surfaced some months ago and needed to be resolved. A&P commissioners Oliver Montano, Bob White and Amanda Foust do not live in the city, LaForce said."

The Arkansas Constitution and Attorney General's opinions on the qualifications for Commission members did not change from the June 2009 City Council meeting when the "residency issue" "surfaced" to March 2010 when the Mayor made her statements to the paper. What changed? An election was coming. Five weeks before the A&P tax election, Mayor Belinda LaForce finally decided the differences between her Commission appointments and the Arkansas Constitution "needed to be resolved."

Early Voting Has Begun

At 8 A.M. Monday morning, early voting began at the White County Courthouse. The early voting period for the November 2010 general election will be held October 18 through November 1. The times the Courthouse will be open for voting during those days are:

• Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.
• Saturdays 10:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M.

For more information on early voting or voting on election day, visit the White County Clerk's Web site.

Since the "nonpartisan" ballot for Searcy city elections will not specify the party of each candidate, we have provided that information below. In this year's general election, the Searcy Mayoral candidates are (in alphabetical order):

• Belinda LaForce, Democrat
• David Morris, Democrat
• Kyle Reeves, Republican

For more links to helpful voter education information, see our Reference Information page.

Presiding Over Public Searcy City Council Meetings

Searcy has a Mayor-Council form of government. According to the National League of Cities (NLC), this form of government includes three characteristics:

• "Separation of powers between directly elected mayor and city council
• Mayor has executive powers while council has legislative powers
• Mayor is directly elected to office, often full-time and paid"

On the surface, these characteristics describe our Mayor and City Council arrangement. However, some of the legislative powers of our Council have been absorbed into the executive powers of the office of Mayor.

Prior to the March 2010 passage of Ordinance 2010-07, the Searcy Code of Ordinances specified that "The order of business and rules regulating the proceedings at Council meetings shall be as provided by Robert's Rules of Order" (Art. IV. The City Council, §§ 2-50). While these rules allow the presiding officer to "prepare a proposed agenda," Mayor Belinda LaForce also required all agenda items for the City Council meetings to go through her for approval. The following emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are examples:

• Routine email from the City Clerk to the Mayor seeking approval for the agenda after the Clerk has assembled it
• Email from the City Clerk to the Mayor seeking approval for an alderman to put something on the agenda
• Email from the City Clerk copying the Mayor and seeking her approval for a citizen to be put on the agenda

This tight control of the agenda by the presiding officer was contrary to Robert's Rules, which says, "It is common for the president to prepare a proposed agenda, but that becomes binding only if it is adopted by the full assembly."

It is also contrary to the agenda sections of Ordinance 2010-07, which replaced some of Robert's Rules with simplified requirements for conducting Council meetings. Although that ordinance places strict restrictions on the people's ability to provide input in City Council meetings, "Any Council member" should be allowed to "place any item on the agenda" before the deadline for the Mayor to finalize the agenda.

Reference Information Page

Our previous post has been updated with links to some supporting documentation. Those documents are also listed on our new Reference Information page. More references will be added to that page, so check it periodically for new documents and helpful links.

Who represents the PEOPLE of Searcy? Here are the FACTS.

Kyle Reeves

• SERVED THE PEOPLE of Searcy as an elected alderman.
• Introduced an ordinance to require the city to INFORM THE PEOPLE of special elections on proposed tax increases.
• Voted to LET THE PEOPLE VOTE on proposed tax increases.
• Has over 15 years EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
• Supported the efforts of OVER A THOUSAND OF YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS who stood up to demand their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE be preserved through the referendum process.
• Spoke with THE PEOPLE OF SEARCY on a regular basis to gain an understanding of their opinions and tried to share those opinions with the elected officials of Searcy.
• Went door to door to let THE PEOPLE know about the special election regarding the A&P tax and to PROVIDE THE PEOPLE WITH THE FACTS.

Belinda LaForce

• Stated that SHE ALONE CONTROLLED THE AGENDA FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS on multiple occasions.
• Placed an ordinance creating the A&P tax WITHOUT LETTING THE PEOPLE VOTE on the agenda on 3 occasions: March 10, 2009, April 14, 2009, & May 12, 2009.
• Repeatedly RULED THAT MOTIONS TO LET THE PEOPLE VOTE WERE OUT OF ORDER.
• Appointed multiple people to Searcy’s A&P commission on June 9, 2009 after being provided an attorney general opinion which said THESE ACTIONS WERE CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
• Placed an ordinance on the agenda on January 12, 2010, February 16, 2010, and February 23, 2010 to make it HARDER FOR THE PEOPLE TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE by limiting the filing of referendum petitions to 30 days (it had previously been 90 days).
• Attempted to enforce a law which she herself stated was repealed 40 years ago in an effort to PREVENT THE PEOPLE FROM VOTING ON THEIR TAXES.
• Ignored a judge’s ruling that the city was not legally allowed to IGNORE THE CITIZENS WHO PETITIONED FOR A VOTE.
• PROPOSED a budget which included DEFICIT SPENDING for the city of Searcy in 2010.
• Operated the city on such a deficit that the $2.36 Million (January 2009) RESERVES HAVE DWINDLED to $1.32 Million (Sept. 2010).