While I recognize that compliance with state laws and regulations can be confusing and those holding public offices and posts can easily violate the law due to ignorance of a statute or ruling, I would like to address some apparent violations which have been brought to my attention recently and, in some cases, are all too common.

The first was reported to me last week Tuesday and involved the response of volunteer firefighters to an accident. According to a motorist report, volunteer firemen, responding to an accident in Springtown, almost caused more accidents as they raced to the scene of the first accident. Some of them may have had mounted emergency lights but most were using only standard-equipment, four way hazard lights. No audible sirens, bells or whistles were heard sounding from their vehicles as they approached and passed other cars in no-passing zones and even on blind curves at high rates of speed. Other motorists were apparently almost run off the road.

I am not criticizing these firefighters for hurrying to the scene to give aid to the injured, but perhaps a reminder is in order. State law requires rotating or flashing red lights and an audible-to 500-feet siren, bell or exhaust whistle in order for the emergency responder to legally exceed the speed limit or cautiously go through stop lights or signals. And, even with the correct equipment installed and in use, operators of emergency vehicles are not permitted to throw all caution to the wind and put other drivers and passengers at risk. Passing where it is unsafe to do so is still a violation of the law and, should an accident occur as a result of a fireman responding in an illegal or imprudent manner to an emergency, let’s just say, “I wouldn’t want to be wearing that fireman’s boots and face the possible liability and serious criminal charges which could follow.”

Perhaps this could or should be a subject of discussion at a fire meeting and, maybe, a little input from a city attorney would help.

Another issue which is continually brought to my attention are reports of city council members - and it can happen with school board members, too - discussing city business (more than just an incidental remark at a social gathering) outside of properly-called public meetings, meetings which require notice to the press and other interested parties in accord with state statute.

This might seem nit picky to some, but, yes, it is a violation of the law for even two council members or board members to get together and discuss public business outside of properly-called public meetings. It is a misdemeanor and carries some hefty fines even if done negligently.

Related to this issue is the use of executive sessions in public meetings. They are allowed to address specific personnel issues but not to discuss general personnel policies, salary schedules or the like. A specific purpose for an executive session should be given in the open meeting and any decisions or actions voted on publicly after the executive session.

Finally, one last issue which has come to my attention appears to be a bit more on the borderline of legal, or not. On two occasions the Eagle Observer has reported the retiring of police officers after 20-plus years of service in which the retiring officer was given his service weapon, both with donated engraving on the weapon.

As a former law enforcement officer, I truly appreciate the gesture and believe the retiring officers are worthy of the special gift. The question, though, is this: Is it legal for a city or a mayor to give away property purchased with public funds?

The Arkansas Constitution, Article XII, Section 5, prohibits municipalities from loaning or appropriating money to an individual. Attorney General opinions (especially 91-410 and 91-411) seem to indicate that such gifts are, at best, questionable and, at worst, illegal. A law relating to public schools and public funds (A.C.A. 6-21-110) might provide some guidance in that it prohibits public educational entities from giving public property having a value of over $100 to leaving or retiring board members, administrators, employees or members of their immediate family.

What I’m saying in all this is that giving gifts purchased with public money is questionable and could be subject to a legal challenge and a court’s decision. How a judge would rule is anyone’s guess, but there is a good possibility that giving items purchased with public funds - even though the recipients are well-deserving - might be found to be in violation of provisions in the Arkansas Constitution. I’m sure that was not the intent in giving the gifts and, perhaps, more legal research or another attorney general opinion might be in order before continuing down this path.

Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer and may be contacted by email at [email protected].

Opinion, Pages 6 on 07/24/2013