Anger, tension grows in 1% tax issue

story by Michael Tilley
[email protected]

The animosity between sides in the debate over the 1% prepared food tax in Fort Smith grows with each new wrinkle. It recently hit a new high — or low — with an e-mail warning to city staff.

Technically, the issue has been brewing for more than 10 years. When the Fort Smith Convention Center was renovated in the late 1990s, it was known then that when state turnback funding ended, a new funding source would be needed to support the expanded facility that was part of a voter-approved package of more than $55 million in civic improvements. Expansion of the Fort Smith Public Library and improvements to the Harry E. Kelley riverfront park were included in the half-cent sales tax package.

After about three years of more lively, but typically civil debate, a 1% prepared food tax was enacted Feb. 24 by the Fort Smith Board of Directors to resolve the more than 10-year search to plug an annual deficit with 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.

TAX DELAY
But the tax, scheduled to go into effect June 1, is on hold. Sebastian County Circuit Court Judge Michael Fitzhugh on May 27 granted an injunction stopping collection of the 1% prepared food tax. The Citizens for Responsible Taxation on May 24 filed the lawsuit asking to stop collection of the tax until trial can be held in the attempt to force an election on implementation of the tax.

The lawsuit stems from a rejected effort by Eddie York and other members of the Citizens for Responsible Taxation to seek a public election on the 1% tax. On March 26, the group submitted about 4,460 signatures, with 2,822 valid signatures required to force a vote on the issue. On April 25, Fort Smith City Clerk Sherri Gard rejected the petition after finding that petition organizers failed to abide by the letter of the law in collecting signatures and presenting signatures to the city.

INTIMIDATION CLAIM
Following his ruling, Fitzhugh scheduled a June 17 trial date. Jerry Canfield, attorney for the city of Fort Smith, and Brian Meadors, attorney for the anti-tax group, agreed to the date but told Judge Fitzhugh it would be tough to conduct all the pre-trial moves in the short window of time.

The city’s first action gave the anti-tax group fuel to stoke the fire. That action was to issue a subpoena to 32 petition organizers scheduling them for depositions on June 6, 7 and 8. The subpoenas were delivered by the Fort Smith Police Department. Critics of the 1% tax decried the haste and delivery method.

Meadors responded through the media, using a June 1 story in the Times Record to allege city officials were attempting to “punish citizens for having the temerity to challenge the city.”

Meadors said he is particularly disturbed because the city is deposing people who turned in signatures that were not rejected by the city.

“I honestly think that is abuse of process,” Meadors said during a Thursday interview with The City Wire.

Meadors said he “seriously considered” amending his complaint to file an abuse of process tort against the city, but decided against it “because I don’t want to distract from the issues here.”

CITY RESPONSE
Canfield said using the police to issue a subpoena is not atypical, especially when time is limited.

“In the time constraints we were dealing with, we felt it was the only effective way,” Canfield told The City Wire in a brief interview on Thursday.

Canfield also said he does not believe Fitzhugh’s ruling clears the way for a Plaintiff (anti-tax group) victory. Fitzhugh noted in the May 27 ruling: “The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits.”

“We don’t think that has any bearing on the outcome of the litigation,” Canfield explained, adding that the city will address Fitzhugh’s points in a way he believes will “produce a favorable outcome for the city.”

At least on this point, Meadors agreed with Canfield.

“It’s not set in stone, and the city can present more evidence. It in no way binds the Judge to rule in the same way,” Meadors said.

As to Meadors’ abuse-of-process accusation, Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack said City Clerk Gard was not able to interview all who certified they witnessed signatures. Also, Gard was limited in what information she could obtain from those she did interview.

“But she could not talk to them under oath. There is a key difference between information provided to the city clerk and what will be provided by the depositions,” Gosack explained.

Gosack declined to discuss how the city would address what Judge Fitzhugh described as “discrepancies” in Gard’s letters to petition organizers.

“It’s safe to say we have a response for that,” Gosack said.

RISING ANGER
What Gosack does not have a response to is the rising level of animosity directed toward city staff as a result of the issue.

Late Thursday (June 2), Gosack forwarded to the Fort Smith Board of Directors and media an e-mail he and Gard received from Charles Scott.

Scott’s e-mail to Gosack read (without edits): “Ray Gosack, you are a piece of shit. Forcing a tax on the people of Fort Smith is not the way We do things around here. The intimidation tactics you now are employing will not prevail. You greedy bastards have got your ass’ in a bind and like always want to correct your mistakes on the backs of the tax payers. That shit ain’t gonna work anymore!  As far as I am concerned you can pack you fucking shit and hall your fucking ignorant ass out of here!
Hoping the worse for you,
Charles Scott”

Scott’s e-mail to Gard read (without edits): “Sheri Gard, you are a piece of shit! A judge has ruled that you were dishonest when you did not allow the collected signatures of the restaurant owners of Fort Smith. I read that you are from Muldrow. Let me say that we do not do shit like what you did over here in Arkansas! As far as my feelings go, I feel like you should pack your shit and go back to Muldrow. We don’t want or need a dishonest trollop such as you fighting against the people of Fort Smith.
Hoping the worse for you,
Charles Scott”

Gosack said the level of anger and hate in the Scott e-mails was by far greater than anything he has seen in his 27 years of work in the public sector. It is unknown if Scott is a Fort Smith resident.

Scott would not talk about the e-mails he sent, but did respond to an e-mail by writing that he viewed contact from The City Wire “as a form of intimidation and it is in your best interest not to go that way with me.”