While Ward I, Position 1 Fort Smith City Director Keith Lau refused comment on the controversy surrounding the attempt by him and fellow director Mike Lorenz to remove attorney “Sam “Chip” Sexton for the Civil Service Commission because he didn’t like the “hostile commentary” in questions posed to him by Inside Fort Smith earlier in the week the Fort Smith real estate developer is certainly not shy about making comments on social media.
Lau, along with position Ward 3, Position 3, director Mike Lorenz took the opportunity to back door an agenda item seeking for the removal of Sexton at a June 27 study session. They also proposed n executive sessions to ddiscuss the matter.
As seen exclusively on Inside Fort Smith this week Sexton plans to challenge those attempts.
Lau, Lorenz and Ward 2, Position 2, director Andre Good have all shown unbridled support for a proposal they voted to “support” at a regularly scheduled session of the Board of Directors last month.
Director Tray Pennartz also voted in favor of “supporting police chief Nathaniel Clark’s effort to usurp the legitimacy of the Commission by allowing him a free hand in hiring personnel for positions at the sergeant level and above.
Lau and Lorenz now claim that Sexton has a “conflict of interest” with the city since his law partner has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Fort Smith resident Bruce Ward which claims, in part, that board members violated the Freedom of Information Act.
The suit alleges that emails between board members and city administration concerning recent attempts by some board members to circumvent the Civil Service Commission and allow police chief Nathaniel Clark to make hires outside of the FSPD for supervisory positions should be considered “public meetings.” for purposes of the FOIA
Lau was certainly not shy about allowing his feelings being known with his replies to a post from Sexton on his personal Facebook page questioning what Sexton says in a erroneous attempt to have him removed from the panel for “conflict of interest.”
Lau engaged in a give-and-take posting session on Sexton’s timeline resulting in some negative comments directed towards the city director specifically and board actions in general
Sexton posted his comments just after 4 p.m. on Tuesday, eliciting a number of responses, very few which were choosing to support for the antics of the three board members in the matter.
Within two hours Lau posted a reply.
Lau stepped into a hornets nest with 97% of the comments that followed questioning the legality of the move by the BOD and the integrity of those behind it.
Lau is seemingly a stickler for being quoted correctly, so out of deference to him here are all of his comments and some of the responses on the Facebook thread.
“No chip and Joey this is not a secret meeting this is the process spelled out under Arkansas and Fort smith municipal code. The first meeting in executive session will be to discuss the conflict of interest and if the BOD wishes to move forward with the removal for cause, if so there will be a second public meeting with citizen input followed by a public vote. I wish you guys would stop promoting “false news” this issue is solely about whether chip sexton…partner in the McCutchen Sexton law firm who is suing the city on a Civil Service commission issue can unbiasedly serve the city and the commission during the undoubtedly extended lawsuit. Joey and chip your hypocrisy amazes me!!!”
Sexton replied:
“Keith, thank you for your comment but this is not false news. I know the law. You told me when you called me last week that this is solely about Joey’s lawsuit against the City. You told me in that call that you were agitated or aggravated that Joey sued you personally in the past and you had to hire your own lawyer. I only talked to you after the City Attorney said that I could do so. If your motion is about something else, tell us now. I fully support the Police Department and the Fire Department but the meeting to remove me from the Civil Service Commission-for which I receive no compensation—must be held in public. Pursuant to Arkansas law, it does not fall within the exceptions for an executive session unless you contend that you are disciplining me for the lawsuit that Joey filed that I have no control over. And since “discipline” within the statute allowing for an executive session means to take action against me over my own actions or omissions, it cannot be held in private. Finally, I further waive any right to executive session and ask that the meeting be held in public. I am sending this comment to you as a citizen, a commissioner on the Civil Service Commission, and not as a lawyer. I am not going to debate this issue with you because the next thing I know I will be accused of unethical actions. This is the last time that I will communicate with you about this issue about which you are clearly mistaken!”
But Lau wasn’t finished engaging in several converations wit other posters about the situation.
“Here’s an idea how about removal until your conflict of interest is eliminated by the termination, or judgement from the lawsuit?”
Which elicited a reply from Fort Smith resident Matt Holloway.
“If Chip is needs to be removed then the directors that violated the FO law need to be removed from the vote. I don’t see any bigger conflict of interest in that.”
In response to a comment from Allen O’Mara about the city needing to work on other, more important issues. Lau replied:
“Allen we are you should look at what was passed on our last agenda 7a comprehensive financial policies. Which went unnoticed … balanced budget, reserve requirements , 5 year capital improvement budgets and debt policies … but recycling and hiring policies got the most attention. I can proudly say this board has made tremendous improvements in staffing and policy.”
Other comments from Lau incuded:
“Tim the scandal is allowing the head of the civil service commission to serve while at the same time his law firm sues that very commission.”
“ok Mike explain how chip does not have a conflict of interest??”
“I would but according to Dailey an woods executive session and then public meeting is the process of law”
“Gary, help me out how can he serve and sue the city at the same time?”
(Note — Sexton is not a party to nor does his name appear any where in the lawsuit in regards to the plaintiffs. Sexton called Lau’s statement “untruthful”in his response.)
“Here is a portion of an article from the American bar association….”Something to think an Conflicts of interest appear in an infinite variety of situations and are frequently fact-specific, yet they often are difficult to identify. According to the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, a conflict of interest exists “if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests or by the lawyer’s duties to another current client, a former client, or a third person.” The key is whether the lawyer’s exercise of independent professional judgment is likely to be unduly influenced by other interests. In making that determination, it is often helpful to ask yourself a question like, Because of the presence of an interest, am I likely to do or be tempted to do something different from what a truly independent lawyer—one who did not have this interest—would do in the same circumstances? If the answer is yes, it is fair to say there is a conflict.” How can your firm sue and a partner in that same firm serve the same? Sounds like a conflict to me.”
“Please, somebody explain how this is not a conflict??”
To which Sexton replied: “Perhaps you should talk to you lawyers. I can’t explain as there may be a claim that it is unethical. But I’m not a stupid lawyer. I graduated at the top of my class in law school. I made the top score on the Arkansas Bar Exam when I took it. My grade point average was over a 4 point (An A Average) when I graduated. Talk to the City’s lawyers who agreed I had no conflict but I can’t address this further. This is for the public and not intended for you, Keith Lau!”
Citizen Aundrea Harris then directed a question at Lau:
“Keith Lau … just a quick question, and one that I believe is warranted.
“Will you also be making a motion to remove those Directors who are named in the various lawsuits for the same suggested amount of time?
“It stands to reason that if the true remedy you are seeking is to avoid ANY (perceived) conflict (note that I wholly do not agree that Mr. Sexton has a conflict in this matter) then the named members of the board of directors should be removed during the duration of the law suit as well.
“There is no way that a named party to a lawsuit filed should have a vote, a comment, or even a whisper regarding this very particular issue.
“While this is in no way personally directed at you or those named members, it does seem to apply some very basic common sense to the situation.”
Lau responded:
“if you are referring to the McCutchen Sexton firm FOIA lawsuit then yes but only to the extent of not violating FOIA not on what was or was not the topic of the email. Such action would paralyze governance and open the door to more frivolous lawsuits”
The July 11 meeting in which the attempted dismissal of Sexton is scheduled set to take place at the Fort Smith School District’s board meeting room on Jenny Lind Avenue.
