Two Alexander residents are challenging Council Member Juanita Wilson for her seat on the council. Wilson is being opposed by Stephanie Beck and Trevis Bentley. Wilson occupies the Ward-4 Pos-2 seat on the council.
A questionnaire was Emailed to the three candidates. The responses are below.
This is Part-1 of a three part series on the election. Candidates are listed alphabetically.
Stephanie Beck
[Did not respond to questionnaire.]
Trevis Bentley resides at 5168 Woodstream Drive in the Meadow’s Edge subdivision. This is his second attempt to unseat Council Member Juanita Wilson. His first attempt was in 2024. Bentley has not previously held any elected office.
“I am currently employed in an engineering capacity,” said Bentley. “Because of the nature of my employment,” he cannot divulge the name of his employer.
Bentley says Alexander residents deserve better representation than the incumbent is providing.
“I’m running because I believe the citizens of Alexander deserve better and I’m not afraid to say it,” Bentley said. “Public office is not a title. It is not a personal platform. It is a responsibility. When residents elect you to represent them, they place their trust in you to show up, listen, communicate, participate, and most importantly, be accountable for the decisions being made on their behalf.”
Bentley has reviewed Council Member Juanita Wilson’s recent attendance record.
“According to the City of Alexander’s council meeting minutes, our Ward 4 Position 2 representative has not attended a city council meeting since April 20, 2026, and has missed 6 of the 9 council meetings held this year. Why? That is a record the voters have every right to question.”
“The recent felony arrest involving the current representative is also a matter of public record,” Bentley continued. “Let me be clear…..an arrest is not a conviction, and every person is innocent until proven guilty, but public officials should still expect their public record, their participation, and their conduct in office to be examined by the people they serve.”
“For me, the bigger question is simple, are the people of Alexander receiving the level of representation they deserve?” Bentley asked. “You cannot effectively represent the people if you are consistently absent from the room where the city’s business is being conducted. Council meetings are where issues are discussed, decisions are made, concerns are raised, and the interests of residents are represented. That is exactly why I believe we need to raise the standard of public service in Alexander.”
According to the ARCourts website, an arrest warrant was issued for Wilson on June 20, 2026. She was charged with Forgery 2nd Degree. Wilson turned herself in to the Saline County Sheriff’s Department July 1, 2026. She was released the same day on a signature bond.
The forgery charge is related to Wilson obtaining a city credit card in 2023 for the use of then Police Chief Robert Burnett. According to Wilson, Burnett told her Mayor Crystal Herrmann wasn’t allowing him to make purchases using the city credit card. Apparently, signing for the card at the bank is considered forgery.
Despite rumors to the contrary, Wilson is still a member of the Alexander City Council. On advice of council Wilson says she was told not to attend any council meetings until the completion of the trial. According to court documents a jury trial has been set for December 1, 2026.
Despite losing in the 2024 election, Bentley says he continued to stay involved in Alexander affairs.
“I ran for this position before,” Bentley said. “I lost, but I did not disappear. I continued showing up to council meetings, community functions especially for the children, and opportunities to stay involved with the people and the community I wanted to serve.”
Bentley touts his education and work experience as vital to serving the Alexander community.
“My professional background has prepared me to serve this position with a level of discipline, accountability, and problem-solving that I believe is essential for effective local government,” Bentley began. “I hold a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Southern University and A&M College, and I have more than 16 years of engineering experience in Arkansas.”
“My career has required me to work with contractors, review plans and specifications, monitor construction projects, address problems in the field, document decisions, manage public resources, and ensure that work is performed according to established standards,” he continued. “Those responsibilities have taught me that leadership is more than making decisions. It is about understanding the facts, listening to the people involved, asking the right questions, following through, and being accountable for the outcome.”
Bentley says a council member should be involved in the community.
“I also understand the importance of community involvement,” he said. “I have been involved in community improvement efforts, neighborhood concerns, youth and educational outreach, and efforts to connect residents with local resources. I believe an effective council member must understand both the technical side of city government and the concerns of the people who live here.”
No one will argue with Bentley’s observation that Alexander has a problem with storm water drainage.
“One issue I believe deserves serious attention is Alexander’s drainage and storm water infrastructure,” Bentley says. “As development continues to occur in and around surrounding communities, Alexander must be proactive in identifying available grants and other funding opportunities to upgrade and maintain essential drainage systems.”
“Development changes how water moves across the land,” Bentley continued. “Areas that once absorbed rainfall—such as woods, fields, and other permeable surfaces—can be replaced by homes, streets, driveways, and other impervious surfaces. That can increase the volume and speed of storm water runoff entering existing drainage systems. For a landlocked community like Alexander, planning ahead and investing in adequate infrastructure is critical. I believe the city should not wait until infrastructure fails before addressing these challenges. We should be identifying problem areas, evaluating the capacity of existing systems, pursuing available funding, planning for future development, and making infrastructure decisions based on data and long-term needs.”
To summarize Bentley said he brings a combination of, “professional experience, … attention to details,” … and the ability to, “work with different people.”
“My professional experience has taught me to be prepared, pay attention to details, work with different people, address problems directly, and make decisions based on facts rather than personalities,” Bentley said. “I believe those skills will allow me to bring a practical, professional, and accountable approach to serving Ward 4 and the City of Alexander. I’m not coming to the council with just opinions. I’m bringing experience in engineering, project oversight, problem-solving, public resources, and community involvement and I intend to put that experience to work for the people of Alexander.”
Council Member Juanita Wilson has always lived at her current address since moving to Woodland Hills in July, 1978. Woodland Hills was annexed into the City of Alexander in August, 2006.
For nearly 25 years Wilson was employed as an over-the-road truck driver and held a commercial driver’s license. She had to leave that job to take care of her ailing mother until she passed away about two years later in 1998. She began working in home health care in 2000 and eventually retired in 2016.
Wilson added she owned and operated, “Wilson Trucking 15 Yrs,” and was a, “Home health nurse 15 Years.”
By the end of 2026 Wilson will have served a total of 12 years on the city council. She first defeated incumbent Andy Mullins in the 2012 election to represent Ward-2.
Prior to being elected to the city council in 2012, Wilson had not held any other elected position. Wilson first took office on January 1, 2013 and is no stranger to opposition in an election year.
In the 2014 election Mullins took back his seat by defeating Wilson 219 to 209. In the following 2016 election Wilson returned to defeat Mullins again. She has served on the council ever since.
Because the 2020 Census showed wards were unevenly represented, the ward lines were redrawn. The new ward lines became effective in March, 2022. The new ward lines moved Wilson from Ward-2 to Ward-4.
In the 2022 General Election she ran for the Ward-4 Position-2 seat and was opposed by April Cotton. She defeated Cotton and has served in the Ward-4 Position-2 seat since January 1, 2023.
In the 2024 election she was challenged by Trevis Bentley. Wilson won, but Bentley did not respond to the 2024 election questionnaire sent by The Alexandrian.
During the 2013/2014 term on the council, Wilson became a Certified Municipal Official under the Arkansas Municipal League program.
Wilson says she supported improvements to the city and occasionally filled in for absent employees at city hall. She said she, “Helped with city getting infrastructure needed badly. Helped pass legislation that made our parks and streets, fire and other things that our whole city was in need of. Was a city volunteer for many years, helped in city hall when employees were ill, so we did not have to pay someone to replace them, etc..”
And Juanita has fought progress and acted against the best interests of the city since Paul Mitchell lost. She's so petty she can't for the life of her just represent the city because she hates Mayor Hermann so much. Imagine being petty, incompetent, AND allegedly a forger. Tacky.
ReplyDeleteI’m proud to see Trevis continuing his work in the community. He has a proven record of dedicated service.
ReplyDeleteJuanita has never fought against progress of our little city and always goes out of here way to make sure the city is seen as good! Her commitment to the city of Alexander has always been outstanding. And as for hating the Mayor, I have never heard Juanita ever talk about disliking the Mayor, that would be disrespectable. Juanita has always thought about the people of Alexander above herself.Also Juanita has a ailing huband and cares for him and that may be a reason why she has been absent. Some people need all the facts first before commenting on someone you dont know, TACKY!!
ReplyDeleteYou must not watch the public meetings. Did you not see a citizen come in and tell her to stop calling him and bashing the mayor. She does it openly. She hates progress and change. She wants to rule the city like a pentecostal mob boss. Maybe she should sit this one out since her own attorney said ahe can't be at meetings. She's wasting the better part of a year of the city's time and taxpayer $ with ger felonious side quests.
DeleteWhy hasn’t she been to meetings the last 6 months? The felony charges from theft from the city?
DeleteShe has stated contempt for the mayor repeatedly. She tries to insinuate wrongdoings when she is the one doing wrong.
Where is my comment!! Why would it disappear from this page...somebody is messy!!
ReplyDeleteNo one deleted your comment.
DeleteMessy
ReplyDeleteTesting…..1, 2 🌴👀🌴
ReplyDeleteApparently, we’re going to keep pretending the issue begins and ends with somebody signing for a credit card at the bank. 😂
ReplyDeleteNobody said the mere act of signing your name for a credit card automatically constitutes forgery. That’s a convenient oversimplification of a much bigger issue.
The questions are: What documents were submitted? What did those documents represent? Why does the original documentation reportedly identify one person as a secondary signor while the document submitted to the bank identifies that person as the primary signor? And what about the alleged alteration of official city records?
https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/63CR-26-534
Those are legitimate questions, and repeating “apparently, signing for the card at the bank is considered forgery” doesn’t answer a single one of them.
You’re arguing about the signature. I’m asking about the documents, the circumstances, and the public records. There’s a difference. If you’re going to discuss this issue publicly, at least address the actual questions instead of reducing the entire matter to a sarcastic one-liner.
The court records are available. The bank documentation exists, according to the records I have. The 2023 Legislative Audit is available for review. So let’s stop dancing around the details. Review the documents. Address the questions. Let the records speak.
Because sarcasm might get clicks, but it doesn’t make the underlying questions disappear.
I find it interesting that there was plenty to say when it came to defending a particular narrative, but now that questions have been raised and public records and documentation have been referenced, I have yet to receive a response addressing those questions.
ReplyDeleteLet’s separate facts from allegations….
What is a matter of public record….
• The court case concerning this matter is publicly accessible.
• Arkansas law defines forgery in the second degree to include certain written instruments, public records, and instruments officially issued or created by a public office, public servant, or government agent.
• I have referenced documentation relating to the credit card issue and offered to share the materials I have available for review.
• I previously contacted The Alexandrian to ask whether its coverage would be unbiased toward all candidates involved. I was directed to articles about the previous two elections and told to make up my own mind.
What requires examination and answers….
• Whether official city meeting minutes or a resolution were improperly altered.
• Whether the documents submitted to the bank differed materially from the original documents and, if so, why.
• Whether the circumstances surrounding the credit card and the relevant documentation violated any applicable law.
• What the 2023 Legislative Audit actually identified regarding unaccounted-for funds and what explanations or resolutions, if any, followed.
These are serious questions. Allegations are not proof of wrongdoing, and the existence of a court case or an audit finding does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. That is precisely why the underlying records should be examined carefully rather than dismissed or interpreted selectively.
And now to the editor and webmaster.
When I asked about journalistic neutrality, I did so because I wanted to know whether all candidates would receive fair and balanced coverage. I reviewed the articles you directed me to, and I formed my own opinion of clear biases.
My concern is that the public discussion has addressed one narrative while the questions I raised about public records, bank documentation, and alleged alterations remain unanswered in the discussion I’ve seen.
I am not asking you to agree with me. I am asking whether the same scrutiny will be applied regardless of whose actions are being questioned.
Will the underlying documents be examined? Will the relevant questions be asked? Will the public be given enough information to evaluate the matter for themselves?
Those are reasonable expectations of journalism, especially when public officials, public funds, and official records are involved.
I have offered to share the documentation I have available for review. That offer remains open.
Accountability should not depend on political affiliation, personal preference, or which side of an issue someone happens to support.
Review the records. Verify the claims. Distinguish what can be proven from what remains alleged.
I’ll be waiting for a response…..
Just to establish my knowledge base, I was there when the resolution in question was passed. The resolution amended the previous resolution that set who can sign checks. The new resolution was needed because Melissa Ratliff (bookkeeper) had been fired. Also, one of the council members didn’t run for reelection. After the 2022 General Election his name was also removed as a check signer. The only names left to sign checks were Mayor Paul Mitchell and Treasurer JoAn Churchill as the primary signers. Council Member Juanita Wilson was listed as a secondary (back up) signer.
DeleteThat resolution plus a copy of the meeting minutes, which wouldn’t have been approved or signed yet, should have been delivered to the bank. Depending on how long it took the recorder to type out the minutes, they could have arrived at the bank either right before or after the runoff election held in December. The resolution ws approved in November, 2022.
Altering the resolution by removing Mitchell’s name wouldn’t make sense. Mitchell would have needed the power to sign checks up to December 31, whether he won or lost the runoff election. If it was amended it also wouldn’t match the minutes which would show Mitchell, Churchill and Wilson as check signers. BTW, to be a check signer each person has to fill out a card at the bank and sign it.
As for the credit card, according to Wilson Police Chief Robert Burnett wasn’t being allowed to make purchases on the only credit card available. That would be the one controlled by Mayor Crystal Herrmann. Personally, I would have had him make a complaint to the council during a meeting and make her explain herself. Did she want the police department to run out of bullets?
Anyway because the city is allowed to have three credit cards, and the treasurer always had a credit card to order office supplies, Wilson and Churchill decided they would each sign up for one. In a letter to the city, bank officials admitted they didn’t ask for the resolution and minutes proving Wilson and Churchill were allowed to be issued credit cards. Did you get that document?
Wilson says she gave her card to Burnett. Later she learned that, allegedly, the card was being used by other officers for department purchases. Wilson said she never used the card so there is no money to return.
The resolution establishing who can sign checks has nothing to do with the credit card issue. All it does is prove Wilson is a council member and Churchill is the treasurer, which bank staff should have known since they already had old check signing card in their names.
It was covered in this article. Click here.
Anything else?
DeleteI’ve read your explanation concerning Juanita Wilson, the City of Alexander’s resolution, and the credit card obtained through First Security Bank.
You spent considerable time explaining why the original resolution was adopted, who had check-signing authority, and why certain individuals believed city credit cards were necessary.
But here’s what I find interesting. Your explanation focuses on why the credit card was needed while failing to adequately address the documents used to obtain it. I told you the documents are in my possession and I’ve already reviewed them just like the Arkansas State Police.
According to a sworn affidavit filed in Saline County Circuit Court on June 22, 2026, Arkansas State Police Special Agent Drake Champagne documented that a falsified City of Alexander resolution was presented to First Security Bank.
And the investigation didn’t stop there.
Former Mayor Paul Mitchell told investigators that the signature attributed to him on that resolution wasn’t his.
Former City Recorder Sharon Bankhead told investigators the same thing about the signature attributed to her.
Cheryl Kindervater, a former city employee, told investigators that Wilson instructed her to replace Mitchell’s name with Wilson’s name on the previously approved resolution, making Wilson a primary signing authority.
Kindervater further stated that she intentionally changed the font slightly because she thought something wasn’t right.
And according to the affidavit, First Security Bank Vice President Jerry Ponder confirmed that Wilson personally presented the falsified resolution to the bank on April 11, 2023, to obtain a credit card.
Now, let’s revisit your explanation.
You emphasized that the original resolution concerned check signers, not credit cards.
Okay. Then why was an altered version of that resolution presented to the bank in connection with obtaining a credit card?
You explained that the bank supposedly didn’t require a resolution.
Okay. Then why was one presented at all?
You discussed why Wilson and the treasurer believed credit cards were needed for city business. How does that explain the disputed signatures, the altered signing authority, or the additional authorization language investigators identified in the meeting minutes provided to the bank?
Those are the issues your explanation needs to confront.
You were there when the original resolution was passed. You’ve made that clear. But being present when the council approved the original document does not establish that the altered version subsequently presented to the bank was authorized.
I can email you both copies if you like…..
And that’s the distinction that matters.
I am asking you to apply the same level of scrutiny to these investigative findings that you apply when questioning other people in Alexander.
Because journalism shouldn’t be about finding explanations that support a particular narrative. It should be about examining the evidence, asking difficult questions, and following the facts wherever they lead.
So here’s my question directly to you. After reviewing the Arkansas State Police affidavit, (link provided above) do you dispute the investigator’s documented findings? If so, which specific findings do you dispute, and what evidence supports your position?
That’s a fair question.
The residents of Alexander deserve to know what happened, regardless of who was involved or whose political interests might be affected.
Explanations are not substitutes for evidence. And opinions do not override sworn investigative findings. I’ll continue relying on public records, documented evidence, and verifiable facts.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't say the bank didn't require a resolution for the credit cards. I said they didn't ask for it and they were suppose to. They also admitted it in a letter to the city.
DeleteDo you have a resolution that says anything about credit cards?
I assume Paul's name was removed because he lost the election. By that point the resolution was invalid and the new mayor should have been asking about signing checks.
All I know is what was said during public meetings. I'm not trying to explain away anything.
It sounds like what bank officials told the investigator isn't what was in the bank's letter sent to the mayor in 2023. Is that one of your documents? I wouldn't be surprised if that's been shredded.
The investigation and its findings weren't known until recently. How did you know what to ask for?
If that's their evidence the results of the trial will be interesting to say the least.
I have two versions of Resolution R-22-21-11-1 in my possession.
DeleteThe original resolution identifies former Mayor Paul Mitchell as a primary signer and Lou “Juanita” Wilson as a secondary signer.
The altered version, bearing the same resolution number, removes Paul Mitchell as a primary signer and moves Juanita Wilson from secondary to primary signing authority.
These discrepancies align directly with the findings documented in the Arkansas State Police affidavit, which I also have in my possession.
So at this point, my concern is no longer simply about differing interpretations of what happened during a public meeting. We have two materially different versions of the same resolution, along with a sworn investigative affidavit addressing those differences. This is why she was charged with Felony Forgery in the 2nd degree.
This raises serious questions about whether you’ve reviewed the relevant documents before offering your explanation. I can’t determine whether you were unaware of these records or simply didn’t investigate them thoroughly, but either way, they’re important to understanding the situation.
I’m more than willing to provide you with both resolutions and the ASP affidavit so you can examine the evidence yourself.
After all, shouldn’t the actual documents be the starting point for reporting on this matter? 🙃
I went ahead and emailed you the following documents:
Delete1. Affidavit in support of the arrest warrant
2. The original resolution R-22-21-11-1
3. The falsified resolution R22-21-11-1
You will clearly see all documentation will be in support of the Arkansas State Police reason for filing the arrest warrant. Just do you know I’ll be bringing this to social media as well.
Also if she can't come she should RESIGN and give back the $.
ReplyDeleteToday is day 183 🫣
DeleteWhat dollars?
DeleteThe $200 a month she's wasting.
DeleteStill no response to my questions I see…..
ReplyDeleteYou're only talking to whoever left a comment. You will have a wider audience if you took this conversation to the Facebook page.
DeleteAre you going to address my questions or no?
DeleteI have two separate responses to this article that you published in which you clearly dodged. You are the editor and webmaster correct?
DeleteI can't see it on the FB page. Do you have it set to where only your friends can see it and engage? If you want engagement make it public.
DeleteI forgot about Facebook. Send a Follow or Friend request and I'll approve it.
ReplyDeleteWhy not just set it to public so people don't have to add you?
DeleteI found it but it doesn't make sense. If you aren't Following me why would you care?
ReplyDelete