On Tuesday, November 4, City of Alexander voters will be deciding who
will serve on the city council for the next two years and who will be mayor for
the next four. There are ten candidates running for five council seats and four
running for mayor. Three other candidates for the council are unopposed. There
are also six issues on the ballot.
The following is mostly a collection of facts with an occasional
commentary.
Mayor's Race
Running for mayor are Corliss "Jerry" Ball, current Mayor
Michelle Hobbs, former Mayor Paul Mitchell, and Ward-1 Alderman Farren Wadley.
While Ball, Hobbs and Wadley have never been elected mayor Mitchell is trying
to regain the position he lost in a recall election in 2012.
Corliss "Jerry" Ball is retired and known locally for serving
on the former Woodland Hills Fire District Board.
- He was a member and chairman of the Woodland Hills Fire District Board;
- When Woodland Hills was annexed into Alexander, Ball negotiated a deal
with Saline County that transferred all remaining dues owed the fire district to
the city in order to jump-start an animal control department. (Unfortunately,
the remainder of that money helped payoff a discrimination lawsuit the city lost
in 2010.);
- In 2012 Ball was appointed to fill a vacancy on the city council;
- He voted to increase the city recorder's pay from $200 per month to
$500 per month. (The recorder at the time was Michelle Hobbs.); and
- After serving two months he quit.
Mayor Michelle Hobbs is asking voters to elect her mayor. She was
appointed mayor by the former city council in December, 2012 after Mayor Paul
Mitchell lost a recall election halfway through his first four-year term. Prior
to her appointment as mayor she was city recorder. The only remaining members
of that council still serving are Farren Wadley, who is running for mayor, and
Sam Gregory, who is not seeking re-election. Hobbs is also a teacher.
Since Hobbs was appointed mayor:
- Seventeen city employees and elected officials have quit - five police
officers (including the chief who has yet to be replaced), five fire fighters (including
the chief who has yet to be replaced), four city hall employees, and three
aldermen;
- This summer, with donations from local merchants, she handed out free
backpacks filled with school supplies to needy children living in Alexander,
but which part of Alexander? Did you get an invitation?;
- Without council approval she had the former city attorney write two
election ordinances (one would have increased the city sales tax from two-cents
per dollar to three-cents, the other would reallocate one cent of the existing
two cent sales tax amongst various departments. After finding out about her
plan the council stopped it.);
- She is responsible for the repossession of a fire truck after she
decided to stop making the loan payments without consulting the council;
- Was forced by the council to have the recent street repairs made in
South Alexander (formerly Woodland Hills);
- Changed the fire department from a combination of paid fulltime and
volunteer firefighters to all fulltime firefighters without the funding to
sustain it, or council approval;
- She instructed police officers to enforce ordinances that are
nonexistent, or expired;
- Refuses to advertise for, or appoint, department heads for the police,
fire and street departments;
- Did not advertise to fill the last two vacant positions at city hall.
Must have picked them from the family tree;
- Keeps ditches and streets clean, mowed and repaired in North Alexander
but not so much in South Alexander. When was the last time your favorite pot
hole or collapsing drainage pipe repaired;
- Doesn't pay bills on time running up late fees; and
- Despite the council's spending freeze on purchasing assets for every
department she has approved the purchase of chain saws, generators and other items.
Paul Mitchell defeated Mayor Shirley Johnson when she ran for
re-election in November, 2010. He had been serving as alderman since November,
2006 when he was appointed to the council after Woodland Hills was annexed into
the city. Mitchell was a member of the former Woodland Hills Fire District
Board and is employed by AT&T. He is a "Red and White Team"
member and has pledged to not accept a salary from the city as mayor.
As mayor:
- In January, 2011 he learned former Mayor Shirley Johnson left the City
of Alexander owing several thousand dollars in back payments and penalties to
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (Mitchell and the council worked out a
payment plan with the IRS.);
- Three streets were resurfaced in the Evergreen area of South Alexander;
- Street lights were installed along Hwy. 111/South Alexander Road and
Brookwood;
- A new phone system was installed in city hall; and
- He would hire the Saline County Highway Department to make street
repairs that couldn't be made by the city street department.
Farren Wadley was elected alderman of Ward-1 Position-2 in November,
2010. He also owns and operates Wadley's Martial Arts in Bryant.
As alderman:
- He was issued a "Letter of Caution" from the Arkansas Ethics
Commission for an "Ethics violation" when he used, "City
property for personal gain." (He was using the City of Alexander Community
Center for his martial arts business without city approval.);
- Voted for former Mayor Shirley Johnson's $800 per month pension; and
- Voted to appoint Hobbs as Mitchell's replacement even though residents
wanted a public vote.
Alderman Races
Ward-1 Position-1:
- Louis Hobbs - (Unopposed,
Husband of Mayor Michelle Hobbs)
Ward-1 Position-2:
- Jean Cummings Fisher - Minister
and new to Alexander politics.
- Jeffery S. Watson - Currently
unemployed, previously served as a part-time Alexander police officer and part-time
firefighter under former Mayor Shirley Johnson.
Ward-2 Position-1:
- Stephanie Beck -
Paraprofessional at the Bryant School District, lost election to Brad Scott for
same seat in 2012.
- Kenneth D. Miller - (Incumbent)
Appointed to Ward-2 Position-1 seat October 27, 2014 to fill vacancy after Brad
Scott resigned, "Red and White Team" member, 25-year military veteran
(retired), retired business owner, vows won't take alderman salary.
Ward-2 Position-2:
- Andy Mullins - Retired, was a
member of the Woodland Hills Fire District Board, as an alderman voted for
former Mayor Shirley Johnson's $800 per month pension, participated in Farren
Wadley's ethics violation, lead petition drive to recall Mitchell while on the
city council, voted to appoint Hobbs as mayor, lost re-election in 2012 to Juanita
Wilson.
- Juanita Wilson - (Incumbent) "Red
and White Team" member, retired, as alderman obtained $5,000 state grant
to equip used fire truck, worked with state representatives to obtain attorney
general opinions, currently not accepting monthly $100 alderman salary and says
will continue if re-elected.
Ward-3 Position-1:
- Andrea Bearden - (Incumbent,
unopposed)
Ward-3 Position-2:
- Dan Church - Elected Ward-3
alderman when he defeated Harvey C. Howard in 2012, "Red and White
Team" member, disabled military veteran and has promised to not take a
salary. He resigned in 2013 when Mayor Hobbs told him he couldn't decline the
monthly salary.
- Harvey C. Howard - Former Ward-3
alderman, retired, was a member of the Woodland Hills Fire District Board, lost
re-election in 2012 to Dan Church, continually voted in favor of ex-police
Chief Horace Walters despite citizens' complaints, did not consider how his
vote would affect citizens, and has admitted to "going along" with
majority just to keep peace, only alderman to not vote for Hobbs's appointment
to replace Mitchell.
Ward-4 Position-1:
- Monroe Cates - A medical
transportation driver, has been on ballot twice for alderman, defeated both
times.
- Melissa Ratliff - "Red
and White Team" member, has been helping City of Alexander as a volunteer to
earn student college credit and says she is "Goal oriented."
Ward-4 Position-2:
- Lonny Chapman - (Incumbent,
unopposed)
Ballot Issues
ISSUE NO. 1
Popular Name
AN AMENDMENT EMPOWERING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF STATE AGENCIES' ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Ballot Title
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES PROMULGATED BY STATE AGENCIES SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL REVIEWED
AND APPROVED BY A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Summary
This one is pretty straight forward. State agencies are allowed to make
their own rules that aren't covered by the State Constitution or State law. This
proposed amendment to the State Constitution will add an extra step by
requiring that all proposed rules be approved by, "A legislative committee
of the General Assembly."
ISSUE NO. 2
Popular Name
AN AMENDMENT ALLOWING MORE TIME TO GATHER SIGNATURES ON A STATE-WIDE
INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM PETITION ONLY IF THE PETITION AS ORIGINALLY FILED
CONTAINED AT LEAST 75% OF THE VALID SIGNATURES REQUIRED.
Ballot Title
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1, OF THE ARKANSAS
CONSTITUTION CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM; AND PROVIDING CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CORRECTION OR AMENDMENT OF INSUFFICIENT STATE-WIDE
PETITIONS.
Summary
Issue-2 establishes requirements that must be met before allowing
anyone circulating a petition, for a state-wide initiative or referendum, more
time to gather additional signatures. Under the proposed Constitutional
Amendment, before being given additional time to collect more signatures, petitions
must be submitted on time and have not only a minimum of 75-percent of the
number of signatures of legal voters needed state-wide but 15 counties must
also have 75-percent of the number of signatures of legal voters needed from
each of those counties.
ISSUE NO. 3
Popular Name
AN AMENDMENT REGULATING CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES FOR STATE OR LOCAL
OFFICE, BARRING GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS TO CERTAIN STATE OFFICIALS, PROVIDING FOR
SETTING SALARIES OF CERTAIN STATE OFFICIALS, AND SETTING TERM LIMITS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Ballot Title
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS;
PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT FROM ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS, AND DEFINING
KEY TERMS RELATING TO THAT PROHIBITION; PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY FROM SETTING THEIR OWN SALARIES AND THE SALARIES OF ELECTED
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, JUSTICES, AND JUDGES;
ESTABLISHING A SEVEN-MEMBER INDEPENDENT CITIZENS COMMISSION TO SET SALARIES FOR
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, JUSTICES, AND JUDGES; ESTABLISHING THE APPOINTMENT
PROCESS FOR MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS COMMISSION, AND PROHIBITING MEMBERS
OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS COMMISSION FROM ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS;
PROHIBITING CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS, INCLUDING CONTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS, TO
CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE; PROHIBITING A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM
REGISTERING AS A LOBBYIST UNTIL TWO (2) YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF HIS OR
HER TERM; AND ESTABLISHING TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Summary
Most of what is stated in the ballot title of this proposed
Constitutional amendment is accurate. It does propose to prohibit,
"Members of the General Assembly from setting their own salaries and the
salaries of elected constitutional officers of the Executive Department,
Justices, and Judges;" and "establishing a seven-member independent
Citizens Commission to set," those salaries.
It also includes, "Establishing the appointment process for members
of the Independent Citizens Commission, and prohibiting members of the Independent
Citizens Commission from accepting gifts from lobbyists."
The proposed amendment will prohibit, "Certain contributions, including
contributions by corporations, to candidates for public office."
After leaving office a member of the General Assembly will not be
allowed to register, "As a lobbyist until two (2) years after the expiration
of his or her term."
Up to this point the ballot title is relatively honest. It's when you
get to the last line the deception starts. It says, "And establishing term
limits for members of the General Assembly."
For those of you who are new to Arkansas, we already have term limits.
Under the current structure members of the State House of Representatives are
limited to serving three terms, which are two-years long. Members of the State
Senate are limited to two terms, which are four years long.
The proposed amendment would totally scrap that language. It would be replaced
with a maximum time limit of 16 years served in the General Assembly; whether
an individual serves in the House, the Senate or both. Also, time served
includes not only consecutive years but if someone leaves the General Assembly
and returns the previous years in office still count as part of the 16-year
maximum. Under the current system anyone who serves the term limits in both the
House and Senate could rack-up a total time of 14 years.
It states, "A member of the General Assembly shall serve no more
than sixteen (16) years, whether consecutive or nonconsecutive."
Time in office due to a special election or reapportionment will not be
counted.
Setting aside for the moment the pros and cons of term limits, what
voters should be asking is whether our legislators should be allowed to get by
with trying to sneak this change through the system. Why is it worded to sound
like voters are being asked to establish term limits when the truth is the
proposed amendment will change the existing term limit system? Where was the
truth squad in the attorney general's office that is suppose to check things
like this?
If legislators think this is such a good idea why wasn't it proposed as
a separate issue? This amendment is suppose to legislate ethics but is this a
good way to promote an ethics amendment by giving voters what they want in
order to sneak through something they may not want?
Issue No. 4
Popular Name
THE ARKANSAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AMENDMENT
Ballot Title
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT,
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015, THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION
OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS IS LAWFUL WITHIN THE ENTIRE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF EACH AND
EVERY COUNTY OF THIS STATE; THAT “INTOXICATING LIQUORS” IS DEFINED FOR PURPOSES
OF THE AMENDMENT AS ANY BEVERAGE CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT
(0.5%) OF ALCOHOL BY WEIGHT; THAT THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND
TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS MAY BE REGULATED, BUT NOT PROHIBITED, BY
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; AND THAT ALL LAWS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT,
INCLUDING LAWS PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION (WET-DRY ELECTION) TO
DETERMINE WHETHER INTOXICATING LIQUORS MAY BE SOLD OR NOT SOLD, ARE REPEALED TO
THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONFLICT WITH THE AMENDMENT.
Summary
This one is simple. It asks if you want to permit, "The manufacture,
sale, distribution and transportation of intoxicating liquors," throughout
the State of Arkansas. If approved, beginning July 1, 2015 voters will no
longer have the option of deciding whether alcohol can be manufactured or sold
in their county.
Issue No. 5
Popular Name
AN ACT TO INCREASE THE ARKANSAS MINIMUM WAGE
Ballot Title
AN ACT TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE STATE MINIMUM WAGE;
THE ACT WOULD RAISE THE CURRENT STATE MINIMUM WAGE FROM SIX DOLLARS AND
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS ($6.25) PER HOUR TO SEVEN DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ($7.50) PER
HOUR ON JANUARY 1, 2015, TO EIGHT DOLLARS ($8.00) PER HOUR ON JANUARY 1, 2016,
AND TO EIGHT DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ($8.50) PER HOUR ON JANUARY 1, 2017
Summary
Issue-5 is another simple question. Do you want to increase the current
minimum wage in the State of Arkansas from the current $6.25 per hour to $7.50
per hour beginning January 1, 2015; $8.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2016
and $8.50 per hour beginning January 1, 2017. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25
per hour.
Issue No. 6 –
Popular Name
To Allow the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages in Saline
County, Arkansas.
Ballot Title
To repeal the abolition of the sale and manufacture of intoxication
liquors within Saline County, Arkansas and to allow the Director of the Alcohol
Beverage Control Division of the State of Arkansas to grant licenses for the
sale or manufacture of intoxicating liquors to include alcoholic beverages of
every kind and type, including but not limited to beer, vinous, spirituous, and
malt liquor within Saline County, Arkansas pursuant to applicable Arkansas
State law and regulations related to alcoholic beverages.
Summary
This too is a fairly simple question. Voters in Saline County are being
asked if they want to allow the sale and manufacture of alcohol within Saline
County. Issue-6 will only appear on the ballots in the Saline County portion of
Alexander. The sale and manufacture of alcohol is already legal in Pulaski
County.
Up until this past Friday there was some question as to whether those
votes would be counted. The Arkansas Supreme Court has ordered signatures not
reviewed by the clerk's office must now be included in the count.
On Friday, October 31, in a four to three decision, the Supreme Court
ruled that Circuit Judge Grisham Phillips must reconsider the legality of the petition
by including an additional 720 signatures not used during the Saline County
clerk's original verification process. The clerk's office stopped verifying
signatures when they had 73 signatures more than were needed to put the
question on the ballot.
A lawsuit was filed by three Saline County residents who were able to make
the case to Judge Phillips to overturn 159 signatures, which brought the amount
of signatures below the magic number needed to be on the ballot. The number of
signatures needed on the petition is a minimum of 38-percent of registered
voters in Saline County.
The group circulating the petition is Our Community, Our Dollars. After
the first ruling they had the Saline County clerk verify the remaining pages
and found there were enough good signatures to still put it on the ballot. But,
the judge let his original ruling stand because Our Community, Our Dollars did not question the number of signatures
within ten days of the clerk's verification as required by law. The question
now is whether Judge Phillips will make a decision in time for the election
Tuesday.
Whether you're for selling alcohol or against, everyone should be outraged
by a process that was stopped by someone in the county clerk's office because
they thought there were enough "verified" signatures. If I were the
conspiracy type I would think someone purposely verified enough bad signatures,
stopped the counting, then sent out the word to file the lawsuit; if I were the
conspiracy type. It's either that, or incompetence.
Either way, there should be an investigation and someone's head should
roll. I find it difficult to believe stopping early when verifying signatures
on a petition is common practice. Whether there's a decision by Monday or not, we
should all vote on Issue-6 anyway just in case this whole thing is overturned.
Election Day is Tuesday, November 4. The polls open at 7:30 AM. And as
my aunt always said, "Vote early, vote often."
