Meadors: We have ‘moral high ground’ in 1% tax lawsuit

Not only does Fort Smith attorney Brian Meadors seek to force an election on Fort Smith’s 1% prepared food tax, he wants to teach the city a lesson with a $1 judgment.

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.

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.

On June 17, Sebastian County Circuit Judge Michael Fitzhugh will preside over a hearing brought by the Citizens for Responsible Taxation who seek to force a public vote on the tax. The lawsuit was filed when the city of Fort Smith found insufficient a petition effort to force an election on the tax.

ABUSE OF PROCESS?
Meadors is most upset about the manner in which the city used the Fort Smith Police Department to issue 32 subpoenas to petition organizers requiring them to report for depositions that began June 7. He says it was a form of intimidation to have uniformed officers arriving at a home to issue a subpoena. Meadors also claims the city did not give a 5-day response period to those who received the subpoenas, and that the subpoenas issued by Daily & Woods, the firm representing the city, misidentified the party issuing the subpoena.

Attorney Jerry Canfield, with Daily & Woods, has said the subpoena process was legitimate and not atypical considering the short time given to prepare for the June 17 trial.

Meadors doesn’t buy it, and is asking Judge Fitzhugh to find the city guilty of “abuse of process.” Meadors seeks damages of $1.

“It’s on principle. I want the dollar. I want that dollar” Meadors said. “But it’s the city, so if I went after a larger amount, it would be the taxpayers who would pay it and I don’t want that.”

At the crux of the complaint is Meadors’ legal request for Judge Fitzhugh to order Fort Smith City Clerk Sherri Gard to accept the petitions and order a vote on the 1% tax. Meadors has hired attorney Josh Bugeja to help with the case.

“When I realized i was outgunned by Daily and Woods, I knew I needed some help,”  Unlike Daily and Woods, I do not have the Fort Smith Police at my disposal,” Meadors said.

SIGNATURE ISSUE
Possibly the cornerstone of Meadors’ argument is that the city failed to give the petitioners 10 days, as required by state law, to address the signature deficiency issues.

“We could have corrected that in the 10-day period. And the (Arkansas) Constitution requires that my clients should have had the 10 days to correct this,” Meadors explained.

The city is likely to argue that petition organizers failed to abide by the letter of the law in collecting signatures and presenting the signatures to the city. Several petition organizers who signed legal documents saying they witnessed all signatures they submitted admitted later in a hearing and interviews with Gard that they did not witness all signatures.

Meadors used the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to look at e-mail correspondence among city staff and attorneys related to the petition process. He expects to receive that information today (June 10). Based on what he finds in the e-mails, Meadors said he may depose Gard and Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack.

Meadors also is working to add the Sebastian County Election Commission as a party to the case.

“Because if the judge calls for an election, they will be required to follow the judge’s orders,” Meadors said when asked why he added the commission.

MORAL HIGH GROUND
Meadors said many of the arguments he made at the May 27 injunction hearing will be repeated at the June 17 trial.

“We are going to parallel what we did at the temporary injunction hearing … which is that the city simply may not be allowed to disenfranchise my clients,” he said.

Meadors is confident his position will prevail. He believes the law and morality are on his side.

“I think I have the advantage because I have the moral high ground. You know, if you get the lawyers out of this and you look at this from a practical point of view, we have the moral high ground,” Meadors said.