Searcy's Deficit Spending

During her two terms as Mayor, Belinda LaForce has relied on deficit spending to run Searcy's city government with the support of aldermen like Mary Ann Arnett.

Deficit Spending in 2005-2006
Deficit budgets over the past five years have grown the city's spending as one year's deficit spending becomes the next year's "budgeted" spending.

In the December 2005 and January 2006 debate over the 2006 city budget, the City Council and Mayor LaForce disagreed over the 2006 budget because it proposed deficit spending. In a December 21, 2005, article in the Daily Citizen, Mariea Grayson reported that "LaForce's budget remains $268,482.08 in the red." The article quotes Mayor LaForce's view of the 2006 budget,

"'I want to appropriate money from the reserves to take care of the deficit.' LaForce told council members."

"'In the first of 2005, they appropriated $190,000 or more out of the reserves,' LaForce said, 'All I'm asking is they do the same thing in 2006.'"

"LaForce said there are only two options left to the city. 'We either pull it out of the reserves or raise revenues,' she said."

Mayor LaForce proposed this deficit budget December 13, December 20, January 10, and January 11 and insisted on using the reserves rather than cut spending. The budget passed January 11, 2006, with Mayor LaForce casting the tie-breaking vote. Mariea Grayson reported in a January 12, 2006, Daily Citizen article,

"Searcy will have to make up $268,482 with reserve funds or other unknown income."

"LaForce said she doesn't understand the problem the council is having appropriating money from unappropriated funds to cover the budget."

Mayor LaForce proposed deficit budgets for both 2005 and 2006 using reserve funds (the city's saved up, unallocated money from more "revenues" coming in than anticipated) to make up the difference. The City Council shares the blame for this past deficit spending because they voted for it.

Deficit Spending in 2009-2010
Even though the members of the City Council changed from 2006 to 2009 including the addition of Mary Ann Arnett in 2007, things have not changed. From January 2009 to September 2010, the city's reserves have declined from $2.267 million to $1.201 million according to the city's financial statements. In fact, according to the September 2010 financial statement, the city has built up a deficit for this year of over $475,000. Although the Mayor and City Council have only spent 68% of their budgeted revenue for the first three quarters of 2010, they have only collected 64.9% of their projected revenue in those nine months (75% of the year).

In the past two years, Alderman Mary Ann Arnett has not only voted for all of the policy items Mayor LaForce has placed on the City Council meeting agendas, she has also voted for over $1,000,000 of deficit spending despite our uncertain economic times.

Why Does Searcy Have Nonpartisan Elections?

In the 2010 general election, all Searcy city elections are "nonpartisan."

What is a nonpartisan election?
The two differences between Searcy's 2008 partisan election and the 2010 nonpartisan election are:

• The candidates did not compete in party primaries
• The candidates will not have their party affiliation listed on the November ballot

However, the candidates still retain their party affiliation, and they are still likely to behave in the future the way they have in the past.

Partisan vs Nonpartisan Elections
The National League of Cities (NLC), the U.S.-wide equivalent of the Arkansas Municipal League, lists the key arguments against nonpartisan elections:

• "Absence of party labels confuses voters; a voter who must choose from among a group of candidates who he or she knows nothing about will have no meaningful basis in casting a ballot;
• In absence of party ballot, voters will turn to whatever cue is available, and often this cue turns out to be the ethnicity of a candidate's name;
• Non-partisanship tends to produce elected officials more representative of the upper socioeconomic strata than of the general populace and aggravate the class bias in voting turnout, namely because in true non-partisan systems there are no organizations of local party workers to bring lower-class citizens to the polls on election day; and
• Non-partisanship destroys resources important to coalition building and effective governance."

NLC says the main argument for nonpartisan elections is "political parties are irrelevant to providing services; experts and professionals should determine the service needs of the constituents."

New York City has periodically considered the merits of nonpartisan elections. As nonpartisan elections were debated again this past June, the Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog had a news story citing the work of David Schleicher, who has researched nonpartisan elections. His conclusions echo the arguments against nonpartisan elections listed by NLC. They make it harder for voters to learn the facts about candidates, they lead to the election of social or economic elites, and they reduce voter turnout.

Why Does Searcy Have Nonpartisan Elections?
In the November 2009 City Council meeting, the Searcy City Council passed Resolution 2009-15. According to the meeting minutes, the aldermen voting for it were "Arnett, Dixon, Sterling, English and Chalenburg." Those voting against were "Nutter, Liles and Brewer." This resolution made all city elections nonpartisan.

Why would Alderman Mary Ann Arnett, and four other aldermen (Dixon, Sterling, English, and Chalenburg) vote for nonpartisan elections? By voting for nonpartisan elections, Alderman Sterling, Alderman Dixon, Alderman Arnett, and Alderman Chalenburg, who all ran as Republicans in 2008, avoided their party primaries. Instead, they are each facing off against their Republican challengers in the general election.

Regardless of their reasons, which were not mentioned in the November 2009 Council meeting minutes, nonpartisan elections are known to cause voter confusion, to reduce the motivation to vote, to obscure where a candidate stands on issues important to voters, and to lead to the election of social or economic elites who believe they "should determine the service needs of the constituents" rather than asking for and incorporating our feedback in governing our city. Is this what Alderman Mary Ann Arnett wants for Searcy?

"Less Government, More Freedom"

Every year, individuals and businesses contend with a growing number of laws, regulations, and ordinances created at all levels of government. At the national level, organizations such as Freedom Works, The Heritage Foundation, and OverCriminalized.com seek to inform citizens about the growing restrictions to our freedom and to motivate them to take action in support of common sense, simplified Federal laws and regulations. The Arkansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity is working for similar goals with citizens at the state level.

At the Federal level, the growing costs of regulations and laws impacts all of us.

• According to an article on the Freedom Works Web site, "excessive regulation, such as excessive taxation of any business or industry, can weaken or even kill it"
• In the Freedom Works Issues section, they say, "Complying with the thousands of regulations federal bureaucrats are scheduled to approve this year could cost American individuals and businesses over $700 billion. This figure doesn't even take into account the indirect costs imposed by these regulations including loss of productivity and limits on innovation and growth."
• According to the Heritage Foundation, "the size and scope of the regulatory state grew significantly" during President George W. Bush's tenure, and it "is currently rising at more than twice" that rate under President Obama

People are becoming more aware of the impact the growth of laws and regulations have on their lives. Even on the city level here in Searcy, the regulatory burden on individuals and businesses has increased over the past two years. Several ordinances were passed creating new regulations for us to follow. They include:

• Ordinance 2009-23 "to provide for the regulation of certain adult oriented businesses," which had previously been banned (passed 7/14/2009)
• Ordinance 2009-24 "establishing regulations concerning the conduct of yard sales, garage sales, and other similar activities" (passed 7/14/2009)
• Ordinance 2010-04  "setting a thirty-day period for filing referendum petitions" (passed 2/23/2010)
• Ordinance 2010-07 "to adopt procedural rules of governance for meetings of the Searcy City Council" (passed 3/9/2010)
• Ordinance 2010-15 "to prohibit the sale, use or possession, or offering for sale, certain synthetic cannabanoid substances known as 'K-2'" (passed 6/8/2010)
• Ordinance 2010-22 "to amend the Code of Ordinances to create a Searcy Tree Board" (passed 8/10/2010)

While some of these ordinances were necessary, others may not have been. For example, Ordinance 2009-24 established the following new regulations for garage sales in the city limits:

• "Garage sale" defined as "the sale of any personal property, which is conducted on or about the premises of a private residence, by any resident or residents of a neighborhood, one of whom must be the occupant of the residence and which sale is open to the public"
• Maximum of 8 garage sales per person per year
• Maximum of 2 garage sales per person per quarter
• A garage sale may "not exceed a total of three (3) "total days in length which shall be held on any of five (5) days"
• Garage sale merchandise is "limited to used property and not property purchased for resale"
• Signs advertising for the garage sale "must be removed withing four (4) hours after the end of the Garage Sale"
• Use of a public address system is not allowed
• "Goods for sale and items used in conjunction with the Garage Sale must be removed within (24) twenty-four hours of the conclusion of the Garage Sale."
• The ordinance does "not apply to churches, schools or not-for-profit organizations"

However, in June 2009, Section 9 and Section 17 of the Searcy Code of Ordinances were sufficient to achieve compliance with city code in an incident in which Alderman Mary Ann Arnett asked Mayor Belinda LaForce to have garage sale items removed from a yard in River Oaks.

• Alderman Arnett requested help from Mayor LaForce regarding what Alderman Arnett called a "Hispanic Garage Sale"
• Mayor LaForce asked for intervention from Code Enforcement
• Code Enforcement reported on their successful enforcement actions
• Alderman Arnett thanked Mayor LaForce for her help

The new garage sale regulations were added to our Code of Ordinances, which already had Sections 9 and 17 restricting us from using our homes as retail outlets and displaying goods for sale in our yards for extended amounts of time. Furthermore, the existing code specifies penalties in Section 1 for any violations.

More troublesome are other sections of the Code of Ordinances that are no longer enforced or that may be unequally enforced throughout the city. Some examples include:

• Sec. 14 - Requires us to place our garbage in metal cans with handles no larger than 20 gallons no earlier than "6:00 p.m. on the day prior to scheduled collection" and, if not followed, specifies fines ranging from $15 to $100 that are simply added to your water bill
• Sec. 24-1 - Seems to be outlawing a significant portion of the vending that occurs at events like Get Down Downtown:

"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to park or place any vehicle, trailer, conveyance or other object upon the streets, alleys and other public ways of the City within a radius of three (3) blocks from the courthouse square, for the purpose of offering any produce, goods or other merchandise for sale."

Since huge numbers of Searcy residents would be fined for violating Section 14 and since nearly all the Get Down Downtown vendors would be fined based on Section 24, it is likely they should be removed from the Code of Ordinances or modified to make more sense.

As we vote for our aldermen for 2011-2012, we should research whether the candidates will revise outdated portions of the city ordinances, will refrain from stacking new ordinances on old ones causing over-regulation, and will lighten the regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses. As Freedom Works says, "Less Government, More Freedom."

Do We Elect Aldermen to Rubber Stamp the Mayor's Agenda?

Searcy, Arkansas, has a mayor-council form of city government. According to the National League of Cities (NLC), the mayor-council form of city government includes the following characteristics:

• "Separation of powers between directly elected mayor and city council
• Mayor has executive powers while council has legislative powers
• Mayor is directly elected to office, often full-time and paid"

The separation of powers should result in the Mayor overseeing the day-to-day operation of the city, and the City Council authorizes spending, appoints commission and board members, and passes ordinances and resolutions that serve as the laws of the city. Since Mayor Belinda LaForce maintains tight control over the City Council meeting agenda, the subjects that can be brought before the City Council are limited.

Based on the Searcy City Council meeting minutes from January 2009 to September 2010, this current group of aldermen (Nutter, Arnett, Dixon, Sterling, English, Liles, Brewer, and Chalenburg) have voted approximately 400 times in those 21 months. Roughly 85 percent of those votes were procedural, authorized spending, or were appointments of commission and board members. Almost all of those 340 votes were unanimous. In the remaining 60 or so votes, one or more aldermen voted against a motion, an ordinance, a resolution, or a procedural step in enacting an ordinance or resolution.

Five aldermen (Arnett, Dixon, Sterling, English, and Chalenburg) voted for every item Mayor LaForce placed on Council meeting agendas during those 21 months. The other three aldermen voted against the following agenda items:

• The A&P Tax ordinance without referring it to the people for an election
• An ordinance permitting people who live outside Searcy to serve on Searcy's Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
• The unconstitutional appointment of the initial seven A&P Commissioners
• A resolution making Searcy city elections nonpartisan
• An ordinance limiting the deadline for the people to submit referendum petitions to 30 days
• The Searcy Tree Board ordinance that allows the city to remove citizens' trees, plants, and shrubs that overhang city rights of way
• An ordinance establishing new inspection fees for large scale developments

The other "No" votes in the past 21 months were cast by one or more aldermen for motions and other non-agenda items brought up during City Council meetings.

Most of the agenda items listed above that were rejected by 3/8 of the City Council were unpopular with the people of Searcy.

• A majority of voters rejected the A&P tax.
• As discussed in a March 4, 2010, article in the Daily Citizen, The Mayor LaForce herself noted that the "residency issue" for "A&P commissioners Oliver Montano, Bob White and Amanda Foust" "needed to be resolved."
• A major topic of discussion on News Talk 99.1 during the third week of October was nonpartisan elections with many callers not understanding the change and some strongly disagreeing with it. They even made it a "Talk Back" subject.
• The ordinance limiting the deadline to file referendum petitions is a repeat of the attempt to suppress the people's right to vote (albeit, this time a legal one)
• More fees for large scale development could discourage such activity, and those costs are often passed on to the the people who will be living or shopping in those newly developed areas.

Do We Elect Aldermen to Rubber Stamp the Mayor's Agenda?
Alderman Mary Ann Arnett has voted with the group of alderman that rubber-stamp Mayor LaForce's agenda whether the people want it or not (and in some cases, whether it is legal or not). As our city legislators and representatives, our aldermen should listen to what the people say, not what the Mayor tells them to do.

Alderman Mary Ann Arnett's Voting Record

Below is Alderman Mary Ann Arnett's voting record on key issues from January 2009 to September 2010. The Searcy City Council meeting minutes are available on the city’s Web site, Searcy.com and clicking on “City Departments” “Clerk/Treasurer” “Agendas/Minutes.”

• Voted against placing on the agenda "the issue of an A&P tax on the ballot for the citizens of Searcy to decide" (February 10, 2009)
• Voted against a motion to draft an ordinance to refer the A&P tax to the people (March 10, 2009)
• Voted against a motion to "set a special election to submit the Advertising and Tourism Promotions Tax for a vote by the people of Searcy" (April 14, 2009 and May 12, 2009)
• Voted for Ordinance 2009-10 levying the A&P tax on the people of Searcy without letting them vote on it (May 12, 2009)
• Voted for Ordinance 2009-18 allowing non-residents of Searcy to serve on the Searcy Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (June 9, 2009)
• Voted for the appointment of seven A&P commissioners three of whom were not qualified electors, which violated the Arkansas Constitution, despite being presented with an Attorney General's opinion indicating such action was unconstitutional (June 9, 2009)
• Voted against a motion "to allow the citizens of Searcy to vote on the A&P tax, and to suspend collection of the tax until after such vote" even though referendum petitions had been filed and City Clerk Peggy Meads had "certified the sufficiency of signatures on the petitions" (July 14, 2009)
• Voted for Ordinance 2009-24 setting many new restrictions on the number and duration of yard sales within city limits (July 14, 2009)
• Voted to postpone indefinitely the appropriation of funds to hold an election on the A&P tax despite a September 30, 2009 ruling that the referendum petitions had been filed in a timely manner - Alderman Dale English later testified this ruling was Judge Tom Hughes' ruling (October 13, 2009)
• Voted against waiting on a proposal to make city elections nonpartisan until after a public hearing had been held on the subject (November 10, 2009)
• Voted for Resolution 2009-15 making city elections nonpartisan; nonpartisan elections have several negative effects on elections (November 10, 2009)
• Voted to hold a special election on the A&P tax in April instead of waiting one month to hold the election in May, which cost the city thousands of dollars (December 8, 2009 and December 21, 2009)
• Voted against a motion to allow 90 days for the filing of referendum petitions (January 12, 2010)
• Voted for Ordinance 2010-03 restricting the deadline for referendum petitions to 30 days, limiting the time allowed for citizens to gather enough signatures to refer any city legislation for a vote of the people; referendum petitions are a check against city governments that act against the will of the people (February 23, 2010)
• Voted for Ordinance 2010-07 "for procedural rules of governance for meetings of the Searcy City Council," which codified Mayor Belinda LaForce's tight control of City Council meetings, largely replaced Robert's Rules of Order, the standard for Arkansas Municipal League meetings, as the guidelines for City Council meetings, and greatly restricted citizens from participating in City Council meetings (March 9, 2010)
• Voted against a motion to amend the A&P tax refund ordinance with the recommendations from the A&P tax refund committee, which attempted to address all problems that may occur and to make it as easy as possible for those who paid the tax to have it returned (June 22, 2010)
• Voted against "a motion to suspend consideration" of the new large scale development inspection fees "for thirty days to allow time to study the fee structure" (July 13, 2010)
• Voted for Ordinance 2010-22 creating a Searcy Tree Board (August 10, 2010)
• Voted for Ordinance 2010-24 establishing new "permit fees related to large-scale developments" (September 14, 2010)

Why Didn't More of Our Aldermen Stand Up for Our Right to Vote?

On June 29, 2009, referendum petitions were submitted to the Searcy City Clerk Peggy Meads. Searcy voters signed the petitions, so they could vote for or against the A&P tax. The over 1200 signatures on these petitions was several hundred more than the required minimum number to refer the A&P tax ordinance to a vote of the people. In her capacity as City Clerk, Peggy Meads "certified the sufficiency of signatures on the petitions." Mayor Belinda LaForce and the Searcy City Council chose to ignore those petitions, and denied our referendum petition rights established in Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution.

The Mayor and the City Council used a 1948 ordinance setting the deadline for the filing of referendum petitions at 30 days as the basis for denying us the right to vote. In a Daily Citizen article on June 16, 2009, Warren Watkins reported, "City Attorney Buck Gibson said the 1948 ordinance does apply to the A&P ordinance." However, later that day, Mayor Belinda LaForce researched the 1948 ordinance, and in her email to the City Attorney at 5:59 P.M., she reported the following conclusion:

"City adopted a new Code of Ordinances by Ordinance 519 (in attachment above)  I believe this Ordinance repealed all other ordinances except those specifically listed in the ordinance. There is nothing in that Code of Ordinances reflecting the City having a deadline on filing a referendum petition." (emphasis added)

So, according to Mayor Belinda LaForce the 1948 Ordinance 303 was repealed by Ordinance 519, and, therefore, it did NOT apply to the A&P ordinance. Although Mayor LaForce concluded the deadline to file the petitions was the state limit of 90 days and the petitions were filed before the deadline, she and the City Council chose to disregard the petitions anyway.

As a result of the City's disenfranchisement of the voters, a lawsuit was filed to compel the City government to hold an election on the A&P tax ordinance as required by the Arkansas Constitution. In a hearing on September 30, 2009, for that lawsuit, Judge Tom Hughes ruled the 1948 Ordinance 303 WAS REPEALED by Ordinance 519, and a March 27, 2010, Daily Citizen article reminded readers that this meant "the petitions were filed in a timely manner" (emphasis added).

After Judge Hughes' ruling, an alderman motioned in the October 2009 City Council meeting for the City to appropriate funds for a special election on the A&P tax ordinance. Alderman Steve Sterling objected and motioned that the subject be tabled indefinitely. Alderman Dale English seconded the motion, and it passed with the votes of Alderman Sterling, Alderman English, Alderman Mary Ann Arnett, Alderman Mike Chalenburg, and Alderman Jim Dixon.

In November 2009, Aldermen Mary Ann Arnett and Jim Dixon were deposed in preparation for a hearing for the lawsuit to compel the City to hold the constitutionally-required election. In both Alderman Arnett's deposition and Alderman Dixon's deposition, Greg Niblock reminded them of Judge Hughes' ruling that the petitions were filed in a timely manner. In the December 2009 City Council meeting, Alderman Dixon made a motion that the City hold an election on the A&P tax ordinance in April 2010, but he voted against his own motion. After voting against every prior motion to hold an election, Alderman Arnett supported the December 2009 motion that finally granted our right to vote.

Why did Alderman Mary Ann Arnett side with the Mayor and four other aldermen to suppress our right to vote for over six months? As one of the legislators for the City, she and her colleagues had the power to call for an election as they finally did in December anytime after the petitions were filed. Searcy voters should not require intervention from judges and lawyers for our City officials to allow us our constitutional right to vote.

Where the Candidates Stand on Taxes

In an October 12 article, Warren Watkins reported on his interviews with "two candidates in the race for Searcy alderman, Ward 1 Position 2" for the Daily Citizen (TDC). In their interviews, the two candidates answered questions regarding city tax revenues.

Alderman Mary Ann Arnett on Taxes

"TDC: You’ve listed street improvements done during your years on the council. What plans do you have for future improvements?
Arnett: I want to fix all of the streets, roads and infrastructure, but it takes money and a lot of it. Searcy has done a lot in the last few years and it lowers the reserve fund, which is very healthy right now. The biggest project we’ve done is on Benton Street at Sidney Deener Elementary School. We can’t afford to spend over $1 million every two years without another source of revenue.

TDC: What source of revenue is available?
Arnett: Whatever the people would be willing to pay for their streets. Sales taxes were down a little but they’re coming back now. If sales tax revenue would continue to go up we might have more revenue from that source. It’s just expensive to fix streets."

On her Web site, Alderman Arnett elaborates on her statements to the Daily Citizen:

"When money comes out of the general fund, reserves go down. We cannot continue to use general revenue money for roads alone. So we need another source of revenue to resurface roads."

"The last tax for the city was in 1994 and I believe it was a sunset tax to rebuild the fire department that burned. Sales tax revenue is down. If we can’t cut back expenses then we could cut back on services. We will have to make choices."

Alderman Arnett has the history wrong (see our Searcy Tax Time Line below), but her message to voters is clear. She is hinting at higher taxes as the way to pay for the things she wants to do for the city.

Nicholas Horton on Taxes

"TDC: You said we could combine infrastructure improvements with low taxes? Where would the revenue come from, then?
Horton: We just assume we have to raise taxes to increase revenues but in reality economic history shows that if we keep taxes low and expand the tax base then we will see an increase in revenues. So if we can foster some economic growth in the city and continue the residential growth we’ve seen we’ll have more people paying in and we’ll have more people spending their money and that will increase revenues.

TDC: Will supply-side economics work on a local level?
Horton:: Absolutely. Why wouldn’t it? If we diversify the types of industry we have and expand the retail industry then some of the spending we see going to Little Rock and Conway we’d see at stores here and the revenue would increase"

On his Web site, Mr. Horton suggests "opening a dialogue & working with state and county leaders," fostering a "pro-growth tax and regulatory environment," cutting "waste in the city budget," to build up the city's finances. He has also signed a taxpayer protection pledge. Mr. Horton is committing himself to look for ways to pay for the things we want the city to do without raising our taxes.

Searcy Tax Time Line
The following time line was compiled using information from a June 21, 2007 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

• 1989 - "Searcy does receive a percentage of White County's 1 percent sales-tax issue that was passed in 1989."
• 1994 - "Searcy's first sales-tax issue was in 1994 at 0.5 percent, which removed the five mills of City General Property Tax and is still in place for general improvements and operation of the city. Residents pay only 0.8 of a mill of property tax, which is designated to police and fire pension and 1.2 mills of road taxes. All other property taxes paid in the city limits go toward county services and public schools."
• 2005-2006 - "a ninemonth, short-term, 1 percent sales tax after the Central Fire Station and Courts building burned;" "It raised $3.7 million, which is being used to construct the new station. It also went to purchase a new fire engine and furnishings for the station."
• 2007 - Mayor Belinda LaForce proposed a permanent 1 percent sales tax, which would have tripled the city sales tax from .5 to 1.5 percent; the City Council referred this tax to the people, and in the 2007 special election it was rejected by the voters
• 2009-2010 - In May 2009, five aldermen (Arnett, Dixon, Sterling, English, and Chalenburg) passed an A&P tax of 1 percent on all prepared food and 3 percent on all short-term (less than 30 days) rental of accommodations; after collecting the tax illegally for six months, the tax was rejected by voters in a referendum election in April 2010

Early Voting Dates and Times

As indicated on the White County Clerk's Web site, early voting for the 2010 general election started October 18 and ends November 1. During those days, the White County Courthouse is open for voting at the following times:

• Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
• Saturdays 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.

More information on 2010 early voting is available at the County Clerk's Web site. We have put together some links to help inform voters on our Information for Voters page.

Ignoring the Arkansas Constitution

This week a Federal judge ruled that a "lawsuit brought by 20 states challenging the health-care overhaul law" can move forward, and those states can "contest whether the law's 'individual mandate' requiring virtually all Americans to buy health insurance exceeds Congress's constitutional authority." Hearing about this story in the news, Searcy voters may remember our own city government exceeding their constitutional authority in June 2009.

In the June 2009 Searcy City Council meeting, five of the City Council (English, Chalenburg, Arnett, Dixon, and Sterling) voted to appoint the initial seven A&P Commission members recommended by Mayor Belinda LaForce. Some of those appointees were not qualified electors (they did not live in the city limits), which violates Ark. Const. art. 19, Sec. 3. In the meeting, the Council discussed Attorney General's opinion #2007-055. In this opinion, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel explained that the Arkansas Constitution requires Commission members to be qualified electors. In appointing the A&P Commission members, the Mayor and five of the aldermen ignored the Arkansas Constitution (the other three voted against the appointments).

Despite City Attorney Buck Gibson's and Mayor Belinda LaForce's assertions that the appointments were not unconstitutional, Aldermen Mary Ann Arnett and Mike Chalenburg requested a legal opinion on the issue from the Lightle Law Firm, and they received the law firm's response June 15, 2009. The City Attorney and the Mayor were copied on the response and received the legal opinion. In the opinion attached to that email, the Lightle Firm advised the city to obey the Arkansas Constitution and Attorney General's opinion.

In his response to the Lightle Law Firm, Alderman Chalenburg said, "It may be a disappointment to some, but we do need to abide by the law. We simply believe that if there is a good chance that the appointment process of the A&P Commission is suspect it would be better to deal with it now and not later...I also agree we need to abide by the law." However, Mayor Belinda LaForce, City Attorney Buck Gibson, Alderman Mary Ann Arnett, and Alderman Mike Chalenburg did not take action to correct this violation of the state constitution.

In a March 4, 2010, article in the Daily Citizen, Warren Watkins reported that the City Attorney and the Mayor said the following:

• "Three commissioners may have to resign if the city council follows their attorney’s advice. At a joint meeting of the Searcy Advertising and Tourism Promotions (A&P) Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board held Wednesday afternoon at city hall, Searcy City Attorney Buck Gibson advised those gathered that an amendment would need to be made to the council’s ordinance for the A&P tax and commission requiring A&P commissioners to be Searcy residents."
• "Mayor Belinda LaForce said she was concerned with the residency issue and noted it had surfaced some months ago and needed to be resolved. A&P commissioners Oliver Montano, Bob White and Amanda Foust do not live in the city, LaForce said."

The Arkansas Constitution and Attorney General's opinions on the qualifications for Commission members did not change from June 2009 to March 2010. What did change was two of our city officials finally acknowledged that they had ignored the Arkansas Constitution.

Who represents the PEOPLE of Searcy? Here are the FACTS.

Nicholas Horton

• Supported the efforts of OVER A THOUSAND OF YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS who stood up to demand their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE be preserved through the referendum process.
• Created a web site, www.arkansaspatriot.us to allow THE PEOPLE OF SEARCY to find out what was going on with their local government.
• Spoke with THE PEOPLE OF SEARCY on a regular basis to gain an understanding of their opinions and tried to share those opinions with the elected officials of Searcy.
• Went door to door to let THE PEOPLE know about the special election regarding the A&P tax and to PROVIDE THE PEOPLE WITH THE FACTS.
• Volunteered with various civic organizations to help MAKE SEARCY A BETTER PLACE.

Mary Ann Arnett

• Voted AGAINST a motion to let THE PEOPLE vote on the A&P tax on March 10, 2009 and again on July 14, 2009.
• Voted for an ordinance creating the A&P tax WITHOUT LETTING THE PEOPLE VOTE on 3 occasions: March 10, 2009, April 14, 2009, & May 12, 2009.
• Voted on October 13, 2009 to “postpone indefinitely” a motion to let THE PEOPLE vote on the A&P tax after a judge had already ruled the city COULD NOT LEGALLY ignore the referendum petitions which the city clerk had certified.
• Voted on June 9, 2009 to take actions after being provided an attorney general opinion which said THESE ACTIONS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
• Voted on January 12, 2010, February 16, 2010, and February 23, 2010 to make it HARDER FOR THE PEOPLE TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE by limiting the filing of referendum petitions to 30 days (it had previously been 90 days).
• Voted on December 8, 2009 to hold a special election in April instead of waiting one month to hold the election in May.* Holding the election in April WASTED THOUSANDS OF TAX DOLLARS that would have been saved by voting in May.

Alderman Arnett’s voting record as cited above can be verified by reading the minutes from city council meetings on the city’s web site, Searcy.com and clicking on “City Departments” “Clerk/Treasurer” “Agendas/Minutes”

*Although discussion of and initial voting on the ordinance occurred during the 12/8/2009 City Council meeting, the City did not deem the voting "official" until the 12/21/2009 meeting.