Pages

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Alexander's regular monthly meeting canceled, Mayor forgot to post notice

Or did she?
COMMENTARY
At the regular meeting of the Alexander City Council held Monday evening, October 20, Mayor Michelle Hobbs told the aldermen she "forgot" to post the date and time of the meeting. So the meeting had to be canceled. A special meeting to make up for this meeting was not scheduled.

For those of you who actually believe she forgot to post the meeting notice I can let you have Highway 111 for a good price and you can operate it as a toll road. She's done this before. A few months ago Hobbs canceled a meeting when "only" five members of the eight member council showed up. Even though five is a quorum she claimed it wasn't enough to vote. Never mind having a quorum means you have enough to vote. All the votes would have had to be five "yes" and three "no" (for those who were absent) but it's enough to vote.

Mind you the mayor does not have to personally type, print and post the meeting notice. City hall staff or the city recorder could have done it. Is she so incompetent she can't delegate tasks, or does she have an ulterior motive?

What does she gain by canceling the meeting? At least two actions were expected to take place at Monday night's meeting; appointing the only applicant to the vacant seat in Ward-2 Position-1 and a potential vote on a resolution lowering the pay of the mayor and aldermen beginning January 1, 2015.

First, the appointment:
Currently, because that seat is vacant it is being counted as a "no" vote as required by state law. The person offering to fill the vacancy until December 31, Kenneth D. Miller, is also running to be elected to the same seat in November. She probably doesn't expect him to vote her way every time and could be trying to put this off until after the election hoping voters will select her choice for that spot, if she has a choice. For now, it is a guaranteed "no" vote.

The resolution:
The pay issue is another matter. The proposed resolution will reduce the mayor's salary from $840 every two weeks to $250 every two weeks and aldermen salaries from $100 per month to $25 per month. It was introduced at the August meeting but had to be tabled to make changes to the resolution. The September meeting was adjourned before getting to the resolution. If approved the new pay scale will go into effect beginning January 1, 2015.

And, there's the rub! By law the pay of elected officials can't be lowered after they take office. It can be increased, just not lowered. Any lower pay rates can't go into effect until January 1 after the next election. If by some miracle Michelle Hobbs is elected mayor she is not going to want that resolution considered before January 1, 2015, much less passed.

Also, her husband is running unopposed for the Ward-1 Position-1 seat. Another reason to postpone voting on the resolution.

There are two more "regular" meetings between now and January 1, November and December. In order to avoid the issue of whether the salaries can be voted on between the election and December 31, to go into effect January 1, I strongly urge the council call a "special" meeting scheduled before the November 4 election with only two agenda items; the appointing of Kenneth Miller to the Ward-2 Position-1 seat and the discussion and voting on the resolution reducing the pay of elected officials.

If the meeting can be scheduled I fully expect Hobbs and her minions to be absent in an attempt to stop the meeting. However, under state law an alderman can be selected to fill in for the mayor. Also, Alexander only needs four aldermen present to start the meeting and appoint Miller with four "yes" votes. That will give the council the five it needs to vote and pass the resolution. It will be interesting to see who attends the meeting and who votes for lowering their potential future salary.


7 comments:

  1. So I bet that she doesn't forget to show up at the polls to try and sway votes. And on the election swing, could someone please explain to me why the people of Alexander would vote for a mayor who was removed from office?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. most likely, because he is more qualified than any of his oppoition

      Delete
  2. There were two issues at play during the election.

    First, Paul Mitchell was never accused of doing anything illegal. After all, at the time of the election he was ending his second year as mayor. He hadn't been there long enough. If I had to take a guess odds are the recall was more against his wife, who was having some very public drug related issues at the time.

    Second, a theory developed after the election that Paul Mitchell supporters didn't consider the wording of the recall when voting. So many people said they voted "for" him it's quite possible if they really voted "for" they didn't realize they were voting "for" recall not "for" to keep him.

    If any mayor should have been recalled it was Shirley Johnson. But, that would make us all racists.

    For the record, the reason Michelle Kidd was appointed mayor was because she was recorder at the time so it seemed logical to make her mayor. That and most of the council had lost their elections because they were pro-Johnson. The public wanted to elect a new mayor so it was basically the council's last chance to tell the public to drop dead.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If memory serves me when my husband and I voted the wording for the recall said "If you wish to remove Paul Mitchell from office vote here. If you do not wish to remove Paul Mitchell from office vote here" So were was the misunderstanding on the ballot? No were. maybe the one's that certain individuals talk about not understanding it hadn't recovered from the previous night. I believe that you have to earn 2nd chances, and I could vote for Paul Mitchell if he would submit to a random drug test. But he said elected officials don't have to. If you want to improve your standing in the community you do what is right. When my sister had a drug problem we helped her plenty, but we finally turned our back on her. People say he has Cron's disease, the lost of weight might be Cron's, but the fact that he has lost his teeth isn't. Your probably right Paul Mitchell was probably removed on the account of his wife, but if you can't keep your house in order how can you do what's right for the city?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I can't find a copy of the ballot on-line and I don't remember what it said, let's just skip that part. I'll stick to what I can discuss.

      Your comment about his teeth assumes he had a full set of natural teeth when he was elected. If he lost them before, during and after becoming mayor because of drug use how did he hide it from his employer AT&T? You would think his work would have suffered if he was really that bad.

      As for getting Crohn's a little background is in order. In Arkansas anyone elected or re-elected in a general election has ten days to be sworn in beginning January 1. He and the aldermen were sworn-in January 1, 2011, which was a Saturday. Mitchell's first weekday at city hall was Monday, January 3. By Tuesday or Wednesday one of the aldermen was already at city hall complaining about how the city was being run. Mind you, this person didn't like how former Mayor Shirley Johnson was running the city and trying to control the council, but I guess when you're a white male you get special treatment.

      Mitchell took the first two weeks in January off from AT&T to deal with the transition. One of the first things he had to do was get phone service back after Johnson tried to save the city phone costs and ended up losing all phone service before leaving office. If that wasn't bad enough we were in the middle of a snow storm. Then it was discovered the city owed the IRS back taxes and a bill to a company who was suppose to deal with the IRS, unsuccessfully I might add. Thank you former Mayor Johnson. Add to that some council members who suddenly wanted daily updates and basically looking for anything to complain about; it's no wonder by February he was sick.

      According to an article in Municipal Insider (http://www.municipalinsider.com/three-mayors-facing-rare-recall-action/) former Mayor Shirley Johnson favored the recall because she didn't like where Mitchell had placed new street lights and he wasn't in city hall because he was still working for AT&T. Aldermen who were pushing the recall had the same complaint. Unfortunately, when it came time to appoint a new mayor to complete the term these same aldermen appointed then City Recorder Michelle Hobbs. At the time she was a full time state employee and is now a full time teacher. She's not in city hall all day. If anyone should have been recalled it should have been some of the council who only wanted to be disruptive.

      Delete
  4. maam , is your home in order? you seem to have issues with your family, can you control them? I understand his wife has done a 360 turn, and is working to gain peoples trust, so maybe he stuck with her and it made a difference. Hope this answers your query.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree all city officials and employees should agree to random drug testing.

    ReplyDelete