Springtown, located at the headwaters of Flint Creek, is a pretty place to visit and has much historical significance to Gentry and the surrounding communities, with many of Gentry's original businesses locating there first and then moving to Gentry when the railroad plotted its course through Gentry rather than in neighboring communities to the east or the west. However, for a small town with a population of less than 100, the political climate remains sharply divided, with accusations flying and officials resigning following the November election and a change in power.
Some of the items at issue, it appears, are allegations of voter fraud and differences in view regarding the Aubrey Long Bridge Project, use of grant funds and whether to proceed with a proposed walking trail. Other personal differences and allegations appear to go deeper.
Though it would not have changed the outcome of the election, allegations were raised of voter fraud because two voters in the Springtown election, parents of a newly-elected council member and parents-in-law to the newly-elected mayor, are at best only part-time residents of the town.
Though it is true there is a similarity in handwriting (or printing) on both applicants' voter registration applications, signatures are not identical in style and, upon further inquiry about the matter, the Eagle Observer was told the applications were completed by the applicants themselves in the county clerk's office at Bentonville.
The Eagle Observer did send registered letters to the two voters in question at their California mailing address (obtained from the address on records of unoccupied land the couple owns in Springtown), and the signature cards were signed and the letters delivered at that California address. The signature, by the way, appears very similar to the signature on one of the voter registrations and on the absentee ballot mailed in Benton County.
Though no written response was received back from the voters answering questions regarding the allegations -- they are both near 80 years of age -- an explanation was provided by telephone for them from their daughter in Springtown the same day the letters were delivered, saying her parents are snowbirds who travel a lot and live part of the time in a home rented from another daughter in California and part of the time in Springtown with her and her husband. Their daughter assured the Eagle Observer that her parents had given up their voter registrations in California so that they could register in Arkansas and call Arkansas their home. She said they even consulted an attorney to make sure the residence change and change in voter registration was legal.
Apparently the Benton County Prosecutor's office agreed. An Oct. 23, 2014, email from Jim Clark, interim county prosecutor at the time, stated that he found "a complete absence of any fraud" in the case and has closed the matter, citing the fact that the couple was not registered to vote in any other place and owned property in Springtown.
According to the Arkansas Secretary of State website, "To register to vote in Arkansas, you must:
• Be a U.S. citizen.
• Be an Arkansas resident (residing in Arkansas at least 30 days prior to the first election in which you will vote).
• Be age 18 or turn 18 on or before the next election.
• Not be a convicted felon whose sentence has not been discharged or pardoned.
• Not be presently adjudged as mentally incompetent as to your ability to vote by a court of competent jurisdiction."
It would seem the only requirement in question is whether the couple resided in Arkansas for 30 days prior to the election -- something which the Eagle Observer cannot prove or disprove. In fact, we learned it would be a felony for the State Police or another law-enforcement agency to check or provide driver license or state identification information if not requested by a law-enforcement officer as a part of a criminal investigation.
Some of my questions remain unanswered and doors to verify things one way or another are closed.
While I don't know if there are differences of opinion over the need for the bridge over Flint Creek at Aubrey Long Rd., there are differences in opinion on how the project was completed and how grant money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency was used. The final decision on the use of FEMA money is still out, at least until the town hears the results of its final appeal of FEMA demands that all or part of the FEMA money be returned.
While the previous council voted to pursue grant funding for a walking trail in the town, not all in the town are supportive of the project and the trail's future is uncertain at this point.
At the risk of angering both sides in the political controversies in Springtown, I'll offer my opinion -- something I've kept to myself for the years I've been in Gentry and writing about news and events in Springtown. If nothing else, I'll speak my piece and give Springtown residents an opportunity to submit letters explaining why I'm wrong. I have been wrong at least once or twice before, so show me wrong on this.
My recommendation would be for the town to surrender its charter and return to being an unincorporated community in Benton County.
I say this because the small community does not have enough people and enough of a tax base to provide the services the people would have by simply being county residents. The town cannot afford its own police force or animal control and struggles to maintain its roads and bridges. I don't know how it will pay for ambulance service. As I read the town's unapproved minutes, every project seems to be dependent on grant funding or the generosity of the county or a nearby municipality.
And, of course, government grants are not really free money. Somebody is being overtaxed to help someone else and to score points for politicians and government agendas.
Springtown reminds me of a town or two I patrolled in western Kansas while a deputy sheriff there. The towns wanted the sheriff's department to enforce municipal ordinances, but I couldn't write a notice to appear because the city couldn't afford to maintain a court or hire a judge and prosecuting attorney. All I could do was enforce state laws and give notice to appear in district court.
When I left state and county roads to enter these towns, it was sometimes at the risk of being stuck in mud or snow because the towns couldn't provide the maintenance available to county residents.
The only reason I've heard for Springtown's incorporation is that residents feared being annexed into Gentry. While those fears might have had a trace of legitimacy when the county was growing by leaps and bounds and housing developments were going up everywhere, that's not the case now and may not be again for years to come.
Since I've lived in Gentry, I've not seen Gentry attempt to annex any land areas except by landowners' petition or to rectify borders and take in areas surrounded entirely or on multiple sides by the city. And, as things are now, I can't see why Gentry would want to annex lands out to and including Springtown -- even if by petition -- because to do so would require Gentry to pave streets, reduce water rates and provide law-enforcement protection, ambulance and other services in Springtown and on lands in between. The cost would be far greater than the increased tax revenue.
Unless and until significant growth in housing or business occurs between Gentry and Springtown, residents of Springtown would probably be better served by the county.
Again, if Springtown residents think I'm wrong, I'd like to know why. I await your letters.
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 01/28/2015