Directors deny, oppose talk of recall effort

Jerry Burnett, a supporter of the Citizens for Responsible Taxation, admitted that some effort has been made to seek a recall election for Fort Smith City Directors Philip Merry Jr., and Pam Weber.

The Citizens for Responsible Taxation (CRT), led by Fort Smith restaurateur Eddie York and represented by Fort Smith attorney Brian Meadors, successfully appealed a petition-rejection decision by Fort Smith City Clerk.

Petitions seeking signatures were pushed after the Fort Smith Board of Directors enacted in February a 1% prepared food tax that was to be implemented June 1. The tax was approved as a solution to an annual deficit with Fort Smith Convention Center operations predicted to occur when $1.8 million in annual state turnback money dried up. The state turnback program—which supported expansion or construction of tourism facilities — ended for Fort Smith in June 2010. The center has since operated on a reserve fund.

On April 25, Gard found the CRT petitions insufficient. Gard’s investigation, including interviews and testimony from several persons who gathered petitions, found that “at least” 1,409 of the 3,363 signatures verified as legal voters “cannot be accepted as verified inasmuch as those affiants have confirmed that there were signatures that they did not personally witness.”

Sebastian County Circuit Court Judge Michael Fitzhugh issued an order June 28 that forced Gard to give the CRT 10 days to correct deficiencies “related to the insufficient number of verified signatures.” Those signatures were submitted July 8.

‘THEY NEED TO GO’
“I can’t say that I’m out in the open on it,” Burnett recently told The City Wire, “but there are a couple of people trying to put together a petition.”

Burnett said York is not behind the recall effort. He also said part of the recall effort goal is to elect directors who will fire Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack and Gard.

“There’s definitely a problem there. They need to go,” Burnett said.

Gard said the only person to ask her office for information on the recall process is Jack Swink. Swink has been vocal about his opposition to the 1% tax, and was one of the CRT leaders. Swink has not responded to questions about his possible role in a recall effort.

Meadors, the attorney for CRT, would not address the recall rumor.

“I can neither confirm nor deny any rumors having to do with recall petitions,” he said.

DIRECTOR INVOLVEMENT?
Burnett and other sources hinted that City Directors George Catsavis, Don Hutchings and Kevin Settle were aware and/or supportive of the recall effort. The three denied being aware or supportive.

Hutchings said he had been asked about it, but is “certainly opposed” to a recall and would not support it.

“I 100% deny anything to do with it at all,” Settle said when asked about the issue. He added that a recall “is the wrong way to go” because disagreement over convention center funding “is not worthy of that.”

Catsavis, who voted against enactment of the 1% tax, echoed Settle’s sentiment.

“No, not at all,” Catsavis said when asked if Weber or Merry should be recalled for their decision to enact a 1% prepared food tax. “That was their opinion. I respect their opinions and they respect mine. That’s childish to try that (recall). That’s ridiculous to think that.”

RECALL RULES
According to the Arkansas law prescribing a recall election of a director in Fort Smith’s form of government, valid signatures must equal at least 35% of total votes cast for that office in the preceding election. Also, the officeholder must have been in office six months for a recall election may be held.

There were 17,825 votes cast in the race between Weber and Juan Martinez, meaning a recall petition would require at least 6,239 valid signatures. A recall of Merry may be more complicated because he was elected in an uncontested race.

Following is the state law dealing with recall elections in Fort Smith’s form of government.
14-48-114.  Removal of mayor or directors.

  (a) Any person holding the office of mayor and any person holding the office of member of the board of directors of any city organized under the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to removal from the office by the electors qualified to vote for a successor of the incumbent.

(b) The procedure to effect the removal of a person holding the office shall be as follows:

   (1) When petitions requesting the removal of any such officer, signed by qualified electors equal in number to thirty-five percent (35%) of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for that office at the preceding general municipal election at which the office was on the ballot, are filed with the city clerk, the clerk shall determine the sufficiency of the petitions within ten (10) days from the date of the filing;

   (2) If the petitions are deemed sufficient, the clerk shall certify them to the county board of election commissioners;

   (3) The county board of election commissioners shall issue a proclamation in accordance with § 7-11-201 et seq., calling a special election on the question and shall fix a date for holding it not more than ninety (90) days from the date of the certification of the petitions by the clerk.

   (4) At the election, the question shall be submitted to the electors in substantially the following form:

“FOR the removal of
(name of officer)
…………………………. from the office of
(Mayor) (Director)
………………………………………………. □
AGAINST the removal of
(name of officer)
…………………………… from the
office of
(Mayor) (Director)
………………………………………. □”; and

   (5)  (A) If a majority of the qualified electors voting on the question at the election shall vote for the removal of the officer, a vacancy shall exist in the office.

      (B) If a majority of the qualified electors voting on the question at the election shall vote against the removal of the officer, the officer shall continue to serve during the term for which elected.

(c) No recall petition shall be filed against any officer until he or she shall have held his or her office for at least six (6) months.