7 Fort Smith government moves

Solely for the purpose of providing a window into how Fort Smith city staff and the Board of Directors conduct public business, let’s revisit the process to name the water park now under construction in Fort Smith.

The park, set to open on or before Memorial Day weekend, is to be called Parrot Island Water Park. To be clear, the purpose of this essay is a focus on process. We were critical of the chosen name, but Parrot Island it is. So be it. The process is what we should collectively find instructive.

Those who watch city staff and Board interactions will recognize the following steps in which the public and Board are provided an offer they can’t refuse on issues significant and otherwise. Following is the outline of the seven highly effective habits (with apologies to Covey fans) of the aforementioned interactions.

1. Options not previously discussed by the board or known to the public are presented by city staff within a few days or weeks of a required vote.

2. City staff recommends a preference from the options.

3. City staff explains to the Board that “experts” developed the options/solution(s) and proferred a recommendation.

4. Any input from the public or Board members that is counter to the city staff recommendation of the “expert” opinion is viewed as micromanaging by the Board, or the simpleton machinations of a handful of perpetually disgruntled citizens.

5. Ideas submitted other than those affirmed by city staff and based on the “expert” advice are rejected on the grounds that some harm (financial loss, loss of critical public services, the jeopardy of previous negotiations, etc.) will occur; or a timeline set behind the scenes – in the case of the water park, ticket sales to the new park – by city staff and the “experts” will result in a burdensome inefficiency.

6. The city staff, often working with one or two Directors who at the time are in favor with the Mayor and top city staff, will pressure the other Directors using the points noted in steps 4 and 5. A pressured Director will say something like this at a Board meeting: “Well, I’m not a big fan of taking this action, but I don’t want to (pick at least one): run the risk of losing a critical public service; waste taxpayer dollars; go against the advice of the experts we hired; be seen as blocking progress.”

7. A seventh step includes either blocking media attempts to gain information, limiting the opportunity for public input, or both. Often both. (A highlight of this step is when the city asked a water park consultant early in the process to not talk about true costs.)

The water park naming process works well as an analogy because it is recent and was worked so well by the city staff and at least one member of the Board who, for whatever reason, was enamored by the “Parrot Island” moniker.

Less than two weeks prior to a board vote on the water park name we learned of the preference for Parrot Island. On Dec. 12, The City Wire asked city staff about the naming process, hoping to get more info prior to the Dec. 16 vote.

“There’s been a significant amount of market testing done on several prospective names. This tested extremely well,” noted the city response. (See steps 2 and 3.)

The City Wire also asked for documents related to the market testing in the Dec. 12 e-mail. We did not get a response prior to the vote, (see step 7) and a day after the vote to approve the new name we were forced to submit a “formal” Freedom of Information Act request. (Certain members of the media can’t simply ask city officials for info. We have to note that our request is submitted under the FOIA.)

Following is the request and response language between The City Wire and the city.
• The City Wire: “Please consider this a formal FOIA request for documents and internal and external city correspondence related to the marketing study of names for the water park.”

• Fort Smith official: “The city/county did not commission a marketing study regarding the name of the facility. I don’t have any of the information you’ve requested.”

• The City Wire: “First, i did not ask for info on a marketing study commissioned by local governments. I asked for "documents and internal and external city correspondence related to the marketing study of names for the water park.

“Secondly, I received the following (see below) from Tracy Winchell on 12 DEC (that was the note about “significant” market testing). Also, City Director Pam Weber mentioned something about a study in the Board meeting last night, and City Administrator Ray Gosack mentioned naming research in his comments last night to the board. Are you saying that the city staff has not received any information about "a significant amount of market testing" conducted on naming of the water park?”

The City official responded with a long response that offered two revelations. The first was that the expert analysis was not significant nor approaching anything that might be considered analysis. Second, the city official admitted that info The City Wire sought on Dec. 12 and then asked for again on Dec. 17 was known to be in the city’s possession.

“I don’t know that I would have phrased it ‘extensive market research’, which indicates something more formal than what I believe was done,” noted the city official.

The city official also notes: “I have attached three documents that we received between 11/22 and 11/30 (even though it appears they’re all dated 11/22) regarding potential names.”

Not only did the response reveal that the city openly violated Arkansas’ Freedom of Information Act, but city staff was less than truthful when they wanted you citizens and your elected Board members to believe the water park name was derived from quality analysis by marketing experts. (The image you see near this paragraph is the first page of the “significant” three-page marketing study used to justify the water park name. You can also link here to the “significant” three-page marketing report.)

City staff and Vice Mayor Kevin Settle were eventually able to convince enough Board members to vote for the name because they said not having a name would negatively impact ticket sales (see steps 5 and 6).

Please know that this essay is the beginning of a series of conversations with you, Kind Reader who is a Fort Smith resident, about frequent and wide disparities between what we hear from city staff and a few Board members, and what we later learn to be closer to reality.