09-23-92Board of Directors Chamber
Little Rock, Arkansas
September 23, 1992 - 1:35 P.M.
The Board of Directors of the City of
reconvened from the September 15, 1992,
Mayor Sharon Priest presiding. City Clerk
the roll with the following Directors in
Roy, Hollingsworth, Lewellen, Shackelford,
total 6; Absent - None.
Little Rock, Arkansas
regular meeting with
Robbie Hancock called
attendance: Directors
Dailey and Catlett -
With a quorum present, Mayor Priest declared the Board of
Directors in session and announced the purpose of the reconvened
meeting was to continue the discussion on the Rebsamen Park Road
Initiative Petition and to determine whether the City of Little
Rock should appeal the September 1, 1992, decision of Pulaski
County Circuit Judge John Ward, which ordered City Clerk Robbie
Hancock to verify the signatures on the Initiative Petition.
(See Minutes of 9 -1 -92, 9 -9 -92, and 9- 15 -92.)
The first speaker was Mr. Richard Brittain, 503 East 6th
Street, Apt. 309, who again urged the Board of Directors to
appeal Judge Ward's decision.
Mr. Barry Haas, spokesman for Save the Parks Committee, read
from a letter written to a Board Member urging the City to stop
the extension of Rebsamen Park Road. He also read the ballot
title of the Initiative Petition as certified by City Clerk
Robbie Hancock to Barbara Martin, Coordinator of Pulaski County
Election Commission, and stated any voter who goes to the polls
to vote should understand the issue. Mr. Haas said he continues
to get a lot of calls from citizens asking (1) Why is the Board
of Directors afraid to let the citizens vote? and (2) How much
has the City Board spent to try and prevent the taxpayers from
voting on this issue? He concluded by urging the Board of
Directors to drop the appeal and let the people have a chance to
vote November 3.
The next speaker was Mr. Leo W. Nonenkamp, #1 Oakwood, who
voiced opposition to the extension of Rebsamen Park Road.
Mr. Jim Lynch, 16 Lenon Drive, read a letter from Mr.
Randolph Mowry, President of the Coalition of Little Rock
Neighborhoods, written to the Board of Directors urging the Board
to drop the appeal.
The next speaker was Mr. Bill Spivey, who stated this is a
case that presents significant issues for consideration by City
government for Little Rock and throughout the state. There are
significant questions concerning the appropriate use of
initiative and referendum petitions. There seems to be some lack
of clarity, lack of distinction between when a referendum
petition is appropriate and when an initiative petition is
appropriate, and there is a need in City government for finality
to know that decisions which have been voted upon are indeed
final and have indeed been decided by the appropriate governing
body. Mr. Spivey encouraged the Board of Directors to appeal the
decision of Judge Ward and clarify these points, because there
are significant legal issues that deserve being addressed by the
courts.
Board discussion opened with comments from Director Dailey,
who stated he still did not support an appeal of Judge Ward's
decision. This is a unique situation that does represent a lot of
issues and a lot of sensativity, and the better educated public
is in a better position to determine whether they want this
roadway or don't want this roadway.
15
Minutes
September 23, 1992
Director Lewellen was concerned that there had been some
direct expenditures made of construction material, specifically
designated for the bridge. What happens to the pilings and
railroad boxcars that have been purchased, because the public
needs to know that there are expenditures specifically targeted
for the bridge and not just the road. City Manager Tom Dalton
stated the City would attempt to sell the boxcars and to create a
cul -de -sac to finish out the road where the bridge was to have
been constructed and to negotiate the end of the contract.
Director Shackelford stated there has been a great
misunderstanding around the whole process, that she just wanted
clarity and, unfortunately, the only place to get that is in a
court of law.
Director Catlett stated that she was still of the opinion
that the Board should appeal Judge Ward's decision, but that she
was not in any way trying to block the public process and the
public's right to exercise their constitutional rights. She
stated that Judge Ward's decision left certain questions
regarding the appropriateness of an initiated act, and future
boards are going to have some very difficult decisions because
they won't know what the public process is. Also, this could
have an impact on future bond issues.
Director Hollingsworth stated that he didn't feel now is the
time to make an appeal, but proposed that the Board by Resolution
point out the fact that in future instances on petitions, whether
initiative or referendum, the City would try to get the law
clarified and the Board should make that known in advance.
However, other Board Members did not support his proposal.
Mayor Priest concluded the discussion by stating that there
are some issues here that have got to be dealt with sooner or
later and felt that the appeal should go forward, but the
concensus of the Board is not to appeal and she would respect
that.
There was a short discussion of the pending lawsuit, and
Director Hollingsworth stated he hoped the lawsuit would be
dismissed. If not, he would reconsider his decision.
Upon question by Director Catlett, Director Roy stated he
was opposed to the appeal.
Since there was not a motion to appeal Judge Ward's
decision, and no action was required to drop the appeal, Mayor
Priest declared the meeting adjourned at 2:35 o'clock P.M., with
the Board of Directors to meet again in regular session on
Tuesday, October 6, 1992, at 6:00 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
cA..
City Clerk Robbie Hancock
APPROVED:
Mayor Sharon Priest