GENTRY — A request from Alderman James Furgason that the personnel committee review state law and prepare an ordinance to prohibit council members from being city employees or under contract with the city drew criticism at an uncalled but public city meeting on Thursday.
With council members Janice Arnold, Janie Parks and Furgason present between meetings of the code enforcement committee and the planning and zoning commission meeting, Arnold told Furgason she didn’t appreciate his request at the previous council meeting and indicated she believed it to be politically motivated because James Kooistra, an architect under city contract to complete a city park project and a police department study and also a member of the city’s planing and zoning commission, was running against Furgason for his alderman’s post.
Furgason held the Ward 1, Position 2 council post in 2005 and 2006 but lost it in a close race to Kooistra in the 2006 election. Kooistra held the seatfor two years but did not run in the 2008 election. Furgason was again elected. Though the filing period has not yet begun, Kooistra has indicated that he intends to run for the post in the November election. Terms have been lengthened from two to four years for the council seat.
Kooistra, who was present between the called meetings Thursday, indicated he also viewed Furgason’s request as focused at him. He said he had been careful to avoid anyconflict of interest when serving as alderman in the term before Furgason by making sure he was not even present in the council chambers when any vote was taken or matter decided relating to his work as an architect. He said he lamented the fact that an attorney general’s opinion could not be obtained prior to the fall election
Furgason assured Kooistra that his request was not aimed at him or politically motivated. He said it came as a result of city residents concerned that there be no conflict of interest on the city council and that everything be above reproach. He said he only referred the matter tothe personnel committee and would abide by the committee’s recommendation.
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 corporationin 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.”
Council members do disclose any potential business interests which could pose a potential conflict of interest, according to city clerk Jo Ellen Martin.
The city also 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.”
Furgason, at the close of the July 12 council meeting, asked the personnel committee to consider and prepare an ordinancefor council consideration which would ban persons from serving on the city council while at the same time being employed or under contract with the city.
Furgason said the ordinance was recommended to him and needed by thecity to assure its citizens that its government was making decisions for the good of the people and not for any personal gain.
While not commenting on the particulars, Furgason made mention of incidents of questionable conduct in the county government and in previous councils, saying he would like to see such an ordinance in place so that Gentry’s city government could not be impugned.
The recommendation is expected to be taken up at the next city personnel committee meeting.
Should the council choose to repeal Ordinance No. 285, it would be unlawful for a council member to be employed by the city or enter into any business contract with the city. It appears unlikely, however, that will happen.
News, Pages 1 on 07/21/2010