1% petition organizers argue case (Updated)

Frank Glidewell, an organizer with the petition effort to force a 1% prepared food tax to a public vote, may not have helped his cause with his testimony Wednesday (April 20) night about the sufficiency of the petitions.

Fort Smith City Clerk Sherri Gard and City Attorney Jerry Canfield conducted the hearing to gather evidence about how the petitions were circulated and monitored. Gard said after the meeting that she may have a ruling as early as Thursday (April 21) afternoon. She has until April 25 to rule on the sufficiency of the petitions.

Updated info: Gard said Thursday it will probably be Monday morning (April 25) when she issues a ruling on the sufficiency of the petitions.

On Mar. 26, about 4,460 signatures were submitted to Gard for sufficiency determination. The effort needs 2,822 valid signatures (registered voters in Fort Smith) to push the 1% prepared food tax to a public vote.

Canfield announced prior to the hearing that Gard’s work to verify signatures found 3,358 valid signatures. Canfield said the number is preliminary, indicating the verification process is not yet complete.

The tax was enacted Feb. 24 by the Fort Smith Board of Directors to resolve a more than 10-year search to plug an annual deficit predicted to occur when state turnback money dried up. The state turnback program ended for Fort Smith in June 2010 from which the city received about $1.8 million a year. Barring a successful citizen-initiated referendum, the tax will go into effect June 1.

On April 1, Gard informed organizers of the petition drive of two problems — no ballot title was submitted with the petitions, and each petition sheet did not have attached a copy of the ordinance sought to be referred.

Brian Meadors, the attorney representing the Citizens for Responsible Taxation, resubmitted the petition documents April 11. In doing so, Meadors threatened criminal charges if the city of Fort Smith does not accept the resubmitted documents.

Meadors was the first to speak at Wednesday’s hearing, saying the process “shouldn’t require a law degree or thousands of dollars” for citizens to file a petition. He also said the law requires “substantial compliance” and not that petitioners “dot every I and cross every T.”

“I ask that you let the voters vote,” Meadors said in conclusion.

Glidewell, a former Arkansas Legislator and Sebastian County Judge, said he personally gathered about 250 signatures at four senior citizens centers in the area. When Glidewell mentioned leaving petition forms at Lewis’ Cafeteria, Canfield asked if he witnessed the signatures on those petition forms.

“No, I didn’t see 100% of my signatures,” Glidewell responded.

Canfield replied that since Glidewell signed an affidavit affirming he had witnessed 516 signatures, that Glidewell must on Thursday confirm those he witnessed.

“I’ll do my best,” Glidewell responded.

If Glidewell’s signatures are all tossed, it would leave the petition drive with 2,842 valid signatures, 20 more than required.

Gard would not provide much comment on Glidewell’s revelation of not witnessing all the signatures under his affidavit.

“It is an issue,” she said.

Meadors said the Glidewell issue should not be a problem, indicating that the law requires the signature gatherer to be in “close proximity” when a petition is signed.

“I am looking forward and am optimistic that the city will make the right decision and do so before April 25,” Meadors said.