05-29-07Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting — Minutes — May 29, 2007
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
May 29, 2007 — 4:55 PM
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in a regular session with Mayor
Stodola presiding. Nancy Wood, City Clerk, called the roll with the following directors present:
Hendrix, Richardson, Cazort, Keck, Wright, Wyrick, Kumpuris, Fortson, Adcock, Vice Mayor
Hurst, and Mayor Stodola.
1. RESOLUTION 12,521 - To set June 19, 2007, as the date for a public hearing on the
issuance of up to three million dollars ($3,000,000) in revenue bonds for the Central Arkansas
Library System by the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Residential Housing and Public Facilities
Board; and for other purposes.
The resolution was read. A motion was made by Director Cazort, seconded by Director
Richardson, to adopt the resolution (Item 1). Jane Dickey, bond council, gave a brief
presentation on what the bond money would be used and how it would be repaid. By unanimous
voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number, the resolution was
adopted.
2. ORDINANCE - Held on 2 "d Reading - To grant additional duties and authorities to the
directly elected Mayor; to call an election on whether to grant these duties and authorities to the
directly elected Mayor; to call an election on the issue of whether the directly elected Mayor
should have veto authority; to declare an emergency; and for other purposes.
The ordinance was read the second time. The Mayor opened the floor for a lengthy discussion
on the ordinance (Item 2) that lasted for about two (2) hours. The City Attorney, Tom Carpenter,
clarified that the discussion was not about personnel issues, but about the positions in City
government.
Citizens present to speak in favor of the ordinance included: Gary Smith, Jane Dickey, Joseph
Burah, Kathleen Olsen, Julian Calzada, Roy Rainey, Sr., Keith Wingfield, Joe Brown, and Annie
Abrams. The major highlights of their comments included their full support of a strong mayoral
form of government, the necessity of an election with extensive voter education for the citizenry
to make the final decision, the request for the Mayor and Board to continue to make the process
transparent, to clarify what exactly the citizens would vote on and its cost to the City, and a call
for action on the issue of governance which has been discussed since the Future Little Rock and
Vision Little Rock sessions.
The Board asked many questions and expressed their concerns regarding the ordinance (Item 2).
The Mayor and Director Kumpuris gave an overview of what was in this ordinance versus the
earlier ordinance and touched on the highlights of the new ordinance. They both indicated that
the language was taken from and written in accordance with state legislation.
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting — Minutes — May 29, 2007
Those highlights included: 1) a simple statement that the Mayor was the chief executive officer
of the City and that the City Manager was the chief administrative officer of the City; 2) the
Mayor has the authority to hire and /or fire the City Manager and City Attorney with input from
other Board Members and that all Board members have the authority to take part in their
evaluations; 3) the Mayor nominates for board and commission vacancies with input from the
other Board members; 4) the budget is prepared and presented by both the Mayor and the City
Manager, but administered by the City Manager; 5) veto power for the Mayor.
Director Kumpuris went on to say that his version of the ordinance was an expanded version of
the previous ordinance which included input from the citizens that was expressed at the public
meetings held earlier in the year and that it was an effort to refine the process of City
government; realizing that citizens would still call their ward directors. He added that the
ordinance added accountability to each of the positions without removing responsibility and
reminded everyone that the discussion was about the positions and not the personalities of the
people currently holding the positions. He concluded his comments by stating that most of the
changes could be done at the Board level, but he felt that it was important enough to take it to the
citizens for a vote.
Director Hendrix noted that the change of government was ranked 16 on the Vision Little Rock
list. She noted that in the Fall of last year the Board had endorsed Bruce Moore as a good City
Manager and she felt that the citizens were concerned about changing the form of government
based on that endorsement. She indicated that if the ordinance passed she would like to see the
election happen within 90 days and not 45 days.
Director Richardson indicated that he felt like the ordinance was very close to completely
changing the current form of government and urged the Board to slow down and give everyone
time to make good decisions. He concluded by stating that he would like the community to have
just as much involvement with this particular ordinance as they had with the previous planning
initiatives like Future LR and Vision LR.
Vice Mayor Hurst asked questions regarding the ballot. Mr. Carpenter indicated that it would be
one (1) ballot with two (2) questions. She also concurred with Director Hendrix regarding 90
days rather than 45 day and wanted to know if the current ordinance would be amended with the
comments from discussion of the current meeting. Director Kumpuris indicated that he and Mr.
Carpenter would be working together to incorporate some of the suggestions and comments
brought forth at this meeting and bring the amended ordinance back to the Board.
Director Cazort stated that he felt the consensus of the citizens was that they wanted change, but
that there was no consensus on what type of change should occur. He concluded his comments
by indicating that the amendments should be made and brought to the citizens for a vote.
2
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting — Minutes — May 29, 2007
Director Keck assured the citizens that the process would continue to be a public one and that the
ordinance was not a change of form of government, but a change in the roles of the existing
government. He asked the City Attorney to add language that clarified the Mayor's veto power
and he asked for an explanation, at a later date, on how this ordinance compares and /or conflicts
with the two bills signed at the state level. He also asked Director Kumpuris to clarify his
expectation for action at this meeting. Director Kumpuris responded that he had none at this
time, other than discussion.
Director Wright's comments included that she and the citizens wanted to see results and that that
is what she expected for the Vision group who worked on the governance committee. She
indicated that there should be a clear picture on who was running things in City government and
that the issue should be taken to the citizens for a vote. She added that her ward needed several
million dollars in infrastructure improvements and she wanted things to move forward so that
other issues could be handled. She also indicated that the Board members had a right to inquire
and research when issues came up and that she would continue to ask questions.
Director Wyrick asked for clarity on the preparation for the budget, which she thought was
already prepared by the Mayor and City Manager. The City Attorney indicated that although this
had happened in the past; it was not a requirement, and that the new ordinance codified this as a
requirement. She also indicated that the citizens she encountered were not concerned with the
duties and responsibilities of the Mayor, but that they were concerned with the responsiveness of
the City government. She concluded her comments by indicating that she did not want to add
another level of bureaucracy to the current system of government.
Director Fortson indicated that he had attended all seven (7) public meetings and had heard some
interesting observations. He added that he felt like the added responsibilities to the Mayor
strengthened the City Manager position because it gave him the ability to respond quickly to
issues that needed a response.. He concluded his comments by stating that the Board should put
the issue to a vote of the citizens.
Director Adcock asked for clarity on the additional duties as they would be spelled out on the
ballot. Mr. Carpenter indicated the place in the ordinance that spelled out the duties in detail.
She also requested the narrative from the public discussions and indicated that it should be a part
of their discussions on the issue. Board and Commission appointments was another concern for
her; she wanted to know if the Mayor would take input from the other Board members and if this
input was subject to FOI. Mr. Carpenter answered that the Mayor would take input and that it
would be subject to FOI unless it had not been solicited by he Mayor. She also indicated that it
was not clear in the ordinance that the Mayor would be a full time position and she wanted that
language to be added. Her final comments included a request that Little Rock and North Little
Rock be viewed as one city with a river running though it; adding her dislike of the current
feeling of competition between the two cities. Director Richardson echoed Director Adcock's
comments.
3
_ T
y
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting — Minutes — May 29, 2007
Director Hendrix made a motion to table the discussion on the ordinance (Item 2) until
further amendments could be made and brought back before the Board. There being no
second the motion failed.
Director Kumpuris had to leave the meeting and requested that Item 3 be deferred until the next
meeting.
Director Keck, seconded by Adcock, made a motion to defer Item 3 and hold evaluations
for the City Manager and City Attorney at the next meeting on June 5, 2007.
Director Adcock distributed a memo from the Animal Services Advisory Committee regarding
goats and pit bulls.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RESOLUTION - Deferred to June 5, 2007 - To make
appointments to various City of Little Rock Boards and Commissions. (May 15, 2007).
Synopsis: Civil Service Commission (2 positions), Community Housing Advisory Board (4
positions), Housing Board of Adjustment and Appeals (1 position), Oakland Fraternal
Cemetery Board of Trustees (6 positions), Port Authority (1 Position), Little Rock Racial
Cultural Diversity Commission (1 position).
A motion was made by
meeting. By unanimous
adjourned at 6:45 PM.
ATTEST:
a cy Woo , CMC
City Cler
Director Keck, seconded by Director Cazort to adjourn the
voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting was
0
Mark Stodola
Mayor