Members allowed to work for city

— At the recommendation of the personnel committee, the council took no action Monday to reverse a current policy which allows city council members to be employees of the city or to do business with the city.

Alderman James Furgason had requested the personnel committee to revisit the matter and bring back an ordinance banning the current practice so that actions of council members not be impugned due to a possible conflict of interest. Furgason said he was urging the change because of the request of constituents.

Arkansas Code 14-42-107 reads as follows:

“(b)(1) No alderman, or council member, official, or municipal employee shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in the profits of any contract for furnishing supplies, equipment, or services to the municipality unless the governing body of the city has enacted an ordinance specifically permitting aldermen, or council members, officials, or municipal employees to conduct business with the city and prescribing the extent of this authority.

“(2) The prohibition prescribed in this subsection shall not apply to contracts for furnishing supplies, equipment, or services to be performed for a municipality by a corporation in which no alderman, or council member, official, or municipal employee holds any executive or managerial office or by a corporation in which a controlling interest is held by stockholders who are not aldermen or council members.”

In 2000, then Arkansas Atty. Gen. Mark Pryor gave an opinion (No. 2000-276) regarding a bank president who sought to fill a council seat in a city which had deposits in his bank. The situation would have been a violation of state law unless the city first passed an ordinance allowing the arrangement and specifying the extent to which the bank president had authority to do business with the city, Pryor wrote.

A.C.A. § 21-8-304, also states: “(a) No public official or state employee shall use his position to secure special privileges or exemption for himself, his spouse, child, parents, or other persons standing in the first degree of relationship, or for those with whom he has a substantial financial relationship, that is not available to others, except as may be otherwise provided by law.”

The city of Gentry has an ordinance in place allowing city business owners and those under contract with the city to serve on the council. The small size of the city and the fact that there are often only a few willing to serve in public office, makes the exception to the rule a necessity in the eyes of some.

Ordinance Number 285, passed in the 1990s, states the following:

“The members of the City Council of the city of Gentry, Ark., are hereby specifically permitted to conduct business with the city of Gentry, both individually and as owners or employees of any business or corporations in which they have an interest, directly or indirectly.

“The Council members shall have the authority to conduct business with the city in amounts and under such circumstances not prohibited by city ordinance or state law.”

City resident John Harrington told council members on Monday that he was in agreement with Furgason.

“Our current ordinance should be modified or repealed,” Harrington said at Monday’s council meeting. “It doesn’t look right (for council members to be employed by the city or do business with the city). It doesn’t even look right for the council to decide this matter.”

Harrington urged the council to place the matter on the November ballot and let the people decide, rather than leaving it up to the will of the council.

No action was taken and no response was offered by council members.