The city attorney and city administrator of the city of Fort Smith advised members of the body who are under fire for alleged violations of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to reject a settlement offer from attorney Joey McCutchen and are expected to vote to fight the matter in court at the next regular meeting of the board.
City attorney Jerry Canfield and city administrator Carl Geffken made the recommendation despite th fact he city and board was put on notice by Sebastian County prosecutor Daniel She about the violations with add admonishment that any future violations would result in legal ramifications.
Ironically, the recommendation came during a study session jn which the City of Fort Smith Board Best practices were reviewed, including a passage that prohibits the exact behavior the board is being sued for in the first place.
In a comprehensive, eight page document that details what is an isn’t acceptable behavior for board members, Section 9, dealing with “Open, Transparent Gvernment the document reads:
“All meetings of the City Board must be open and public in accordance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (Arkansas Statute 25-19-101 et. seq.). Deliberations and decisions of the board should be made so that the public has opportunity to view the performance of its elected officials. The Board may convene in executive session as provided by law. Members of the Board SHOULD AVOID unintended meetings about city business which may occur in person, by telephone, or INTERACTVE E-MAIL DISCUSSION.”
Fort Smith citizen Bruce Wade filed a lawsuit against individual Fort Smith City Directors Keith Lau, Andre Good, and Mike Lorenz in late August for alleged violations that the three individual directors committed against the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
In the lawsuit Wade claims, Lau, Good and Lorenz either directly or essentially asked other directors to “close their eyes” in an attempt to avoid violating FOIA. Lau specifically told other directors to “close their eyes” to his e-mail.
Lorenz told other directors to “feel free to stop reading at this point and delete this email if you do not want to see my opinion.”
Good also said that he “wholeheartedly” agreed with Lau.
The “secret e-mail meeting” between the three Directors concluded with a vote of three directors voting against Bruce Wade’s proposal and four directors, three of which were included in the secret email chain continue to press votes in an attempt to stack the deck in an effort to allow Police Chief Nathaniel Clark free reign ro circumvent the Fort Smith Civil Service Commission in the hiring of officers from outside the department for supervisory positions.
The steadfast refusal of the three, plus voting bloc partner Tracy Pennartz, to operate in the open manifested itself again at the last regularly scheduled meeting of the board when the voting cabal pushed through an ordinance to increase the size of the Fort Smith Civil Commission from five to seven members,
Inside Fort Smith has learned that at least two individuals have been the subject of discussion among board members to possibly fill those positions, despite the following Section in the “Best Board Practices” document that was on review on Tuesday.
“Once the Board has determined there is a vacant seat on the Board, the Board shall act in accordance with state law (Arkansas Statute 14-48-115) and as expeditiously as possible to fill the vacancy. If the Board shall fill the vacancy, the Board shall publicly solicit applications/statements of interest from qualified citizens. Based on the number of applications received, the Board shall establish a process for screening and interviewing applicants. The Board shall not be obligated to interview all applicants, particularly if there is a large number.”
Under Section 4: Code of Ethics, the document reads:
“Board members should be mindful of the need for neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all and to extend the same treatment each would want to receive himself/herself. They should abstain from deliberations and voting when and only when a conflict of interest exists in accordance with the City’s business ethics policy, section II. Board members should make decisions based on the merits of the issue with attention to due process and citizen participation. They should be knowledgeable and develop an understanding of local, state and national governmental guidance, directives, regulations and ordinances pertaining to a Board member’s office. Members of the board should maintain the utmost standards of personal integrity, truthfulness, honesty and fairness in carrying out public duties; avoid improprieties in roles as public servants including the appearance of impropriety; and never use city position or powers for improper personal gain. Board members should maintain and respect the confidentiality of private and confidential information. Avoid personal gain by the misuse of confidential information. Members of the board shouldn’t condone any unethical or illegal activity.”
Also, the “Best Practices ” document under “Relationship Between Board, City Administration and Staff ( (Section 17, Article 4) states:
“Board members shall not attempt to influence City staff on employment decisions, awarding contracts, purchasing decisions, selecting consultants, or issuing City licenses and permits.”
Earlier emails between Geffken and director Andre Good showed a distinct pattern of Good attempting to influence the hiring decision when it came to the selection of a new police chief last year.
