Alderman Nutter motions to appropriate funds for the A&P tax special election–DENIED

Alderman Carl Nutter motions to appropriate funds for the A&P Tax special election that is mandated via the referendum petitions. Note the “I’ll second” at 0:21 by Alderman Brewer–the Mayor conveniently did not hear this.

Also note Sterling’s “explanation” of why he is motioning to “indefinitely suspend” Mr. Nutter’s motion to appropriate special election funding:

These people’s blatant disrespect for the law is simply shocking at this point.  You saw them for yourself, right down the line–Sterling, English, Chalenburg, Arnett, and Dixon–all voting to indefinitely suspend any discussion of a special election.  In case you haven’t heard, the 1200 Searcy voters said they wanted to vote on the A&P Tax and they signed a referendum petition to that effect.  The city council and the mayor have since tied this issue up in court so they can continue to collect their money.  Judge Hughes has since ruled that the council had no right to deny the petitions and they should have set the election date for the tax.

So what is their current excuse for delaying the special election?  Do they really have such a blatant disrespect for the rule of law?  Is their agenda more important than the will of the people?


The Arkansas Patriot is a conservative organization dedicated to equipping citizens with the truth, insuring transparent government, and encouraging citizens to question their government boldly.  The editor can be reached at arkansaspatriot@gmail.com.  Readers can follow The Patriot on Twitter and Facebook.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. Scott Biddle

    Technically, the motion to postpone indefinitely superceded the motion to amend the ordinance (even though Nutter received a second). Now, it appeared that alderman Sterling had clearly been coached regarding what to do either by the mayor or city attorney (who had discussed in private e-mails the fact that the last thing they wanted anyone doing was “confusing” the council with facts about the A&P tax and lawsuit – you should post the mayor’s e-mail on that topic). It is good to see that Mr. Sterling is back on the same page as the mayor and city attorney since several months ago he was angrily confronting citizens on the streets of Searcy telling them that when a citizen said the same thing the mayor said in private e-mails (namely that the A&P commission appointment process violates the state constitution) the citizen was lying.

  2. Garret Myhan

    Scott,
    I respectfully disagree with you. According to Robert’s Rules of Order (Revised):

    “After a motion has been made no other motion is in order until the chair has stated the question on this motion, or has declared, after a reasonable opportunity has been given for a second, that the motion has not been seconded, or has ruled it out of order.” pp 36-37

    “When a motion has been made and seconded, it is the duty of the chair, unless he rules it out of order, immediately to state the question–that is, state the exact question that is before the assembly for its consideration and action.” p 38

    As you can see in the video, the Mayor neither acknowledged Mr. Nutter’s motion, Mr. Brewer’s second, or declared either of them out of order, but instead ignored them both, acknowledging Mr. Sterling’s motion. This is in clear violation of the Rules of Order.

  3. Scott Biddle

    Garret,
    I admit that the mayor never really formally acknowledges the motion. That being said, she seldom formally acknowledged any motions at all until time to vote (she cites the rules whenever she thinks they will help her and then willfully or ignorantly disregards them in most cases). My point is that I have heard several people state that she should have allowed a vote on Mr. Nutter’s motion because he had a motion and a second, while under Robert’s Rules she was not required to hold such a vote. The vote on the motion to postpone serves the same purpose, however, as it puts every member of the council on the record as being willing to address the reality of the court’s ruling and obey the law or being unwilling to accept the court’s ruling and obey the law.

  4. Garret Myhan

    Scott,
    I still maintain that, according to Robert’s Rules of Order (sited above), the chair is required to acknowledge a motion that has been properly made and seconded. However, your parenthetical statement hits the real nail right on the head: the Mayor not only observes but REQUIRES observation of the Rules only when it suits her purposes. When it does not, she ignores the Rules herself and does not require the Council to follow them either. This practice is embarrassing to me and should be embarrassing to all Searcy citizens. If an organization adopts Robert’s Rules of Order to use in conducting their meetings, the Rules should be 1) known by all members of the Council, especially the chair and 2) followed to the letter in each and every instance. Our mayor and Council are a disgrace. I hope after the next election our new Mayor and Aldermen will do better in this regard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s