LITTLE ROCK — Depending on whom you ask, the idea to abolish two of the Pulaski County Quorum Court’s three standing committees is good government at work or just plain partisan politics.
Earlier this month, Justice of the Peace Donna Massey of Little Rock, a Democrat, introduced an ordinance to abolish the Administration Committee and the County Services Committee and replace them with a monthly agenda meeting of the full 15-member Quorum Court.
Proponents of the ordinance say that it would give each member a hand in setting the agenda and would end some redundant practices. Opponents, though, say the proposal will mostly address a Republican majority in one of the committees although the Quorum Court, as a whole, is majority Democrat.
The proposal is modeled after the Little Rock City Board of Directors, which meets one week to set its agenda for its regular meeting the next week.
The Quorum Court, on the other hand, holds once a-month meetings of the Administrative Committee and the County Services Committee prior to its once-a-month full meeting. The proposed ordinance will not affect the Ways and Means Committee, which meets every three months.
Under Massey’s proposal, the Quorum Court would meet once a month in place of the Administration Committee and the County Services Committee to set the agenda for the legislative body’s regular meeting.
If the Quorum Court adopts Massey’s proposal at its Feb. 26 meeting, it would become the second Quorum Court in the state to use such a system, according to the Association of Arkansas Counties. Benton County Quorum Court is the only quorum court among the state’s 75 that operates in a similar manner.
Her proposal comes less than two months after the Quorum Court’s members met to select the membership of its committees. Members can request membership on a committee but seniority can trump those requests.
At the end of the organizational meeting, Republicans had majorities on two of the three committees at a time when the Democrats hold a 9-6 majority on the full Quorum Court.
Four Republicans are on the seven-member Ways and Means Committee, which is headed by a Republican justice of peace, Bob Johnson of Jacksonville. The County Services Committee also has four GOP members and a GOP chairman, Justice of the Peace Shane Stacks of North Little Rock.
The Democrats ended up dominating the Administration Committee, which has only one Republican among its eight members - John-son. Its chairman is Justice of the Peace Curtis Keith, a Democrat from Mabelvale.
Massey, who has been in office since 1999 and is the most-senior member of the Quorum Court, didn’t mention the political divisions on the committee in explaining her ordinance. Rather, she said, her proposal came about because of her frustration with the committee system.
“I don’t look at which party is in control,” she said at a meeting of the Administration Committee, which recommended her proposed ordinance to the full Quorum Court, 7-1, with the other six Democrats on the committee joining her in voting for the proposal.
Massey said her frustration stems partly from the fact that one committee can control what the full Quorum Court gets to consider, meaning an issue might not come to her attention if it doesn’t come through her committee.
“I want the opportunity to hear about ordinances in the other committee,” she said.
Massey also recalled that once, an ordinance that failed in one committee was rerouted to another committee to reach the full Quorum Court, which she said contravened the spirit of the committee system.
Others said the committee system can be unwieldy at times, especially when the same issue comes before two committees, which typically meet back-to-back.
Justice of the Peace Julie Blackwood, a Democrat from Little Rock, pointed to the Lake Maumelle watershed issue as an example. The ordinances controlling development in the watershed went through the Administration and County Services committees.
County Attorney Karla Burnett said she and Joy Pensinger, the Quorum Court coordinator, often assign significant legislation to both committees.
“It was a huge issue,” Blackwood acknowledged, but she added that “people were very upset about it because it went through both committees,” resulting in them having to make presentations or remarks twice or at least spend additional time hearing the same presentations and remarks.
At the same time, some justices of the peace often arrive early for their committee meeting, resulting in requests to shorten presentations because they have already heard them in the previous meeting.
Justice of the Peace Tyler Denton of Little Rock, a Democrat serving his first term, said he is “in complete agreement” with Massey’s proposal and didn’t see it as a partisan issue.
“I think we ought to have the opportunity to vote on every single ordinance,” he said.
Massey’s ordinance didn’t receive the same reception in the GOP-dominated County Services Committee, but Justice of the Peace Phil Stowers of Maumelle, the senior-most Republican on the Quorum Court, said he could count votes and offered a compromise:
Keep the committee system, “which has served us well,” and have the county judge appoint the committee members.
Justice of the Peace Shane Stacks, a Republican, agreed, saying the committee system provides “checks and balances,” screening legislation that may not yet deserve the attention of the full Quorum Court. “If you go to the state Legislature, you’ve got committees that do not represent the entire body by any means [and] determines what moves forward,” he said.
Karilyn Brown, a freshman Republican justice of the peace from Sherwood, said she preferred the committee system, too, but said it made sense that whichever party is in the majority on the full Quorum Court should have majorities on the committees as well.
They also agreed with criticism that the ordinance controlling what areas of responsibilities the committees have should be revamped to fit with the current structure of county government.
The outdated ordinance, Burnett said, can sometimes leave her guessing where a proposed ordinance or resolution should be assigned.
Stowers’ proposal seems in keeping with state law, according to an attorney general’s opinions, which are nonbinding but often can guide policymakers.
A 2003 opinion by then-Attorney General Mike Beebe cites Arkansas Code Annotated 14-14-904(d), which appears to assume a committee system for the quorum courts.
The law said the presiding officers of the quorum court “shall appoint all regular and special committees of a quorum court, subject to any procedural rules which may be adopted by ordinance.”
The presiding officer is defined as the county judge, who presides over the quorum court “without a vote but with the power of veto. In the absence of the county judge, a quorum of the justices by majority vote shall elect one of their number to preside but without power of veto.”
Beebe further opined that under that law, the “quorum court cannot adopt procedural rules that would ... infringe upon the presiding officer’s authority to choose the individual committee members.”
In an interview, Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines said he was unaware of the law and had always deferred to the Quorum Court in choosing the makeup of the committees, a practice that was in place before he took office.
The Association of Arkansas Counties has taken no position on the issue, said its spokesman, Scott Perkins.
He called it a “very gray area of the law” but going to an agenda system may “contravene” the state law.
“We are investigating it,” Perkins said, adding that the Pulaski County Quorum Court is one of six in the state that is looking at abolishing the committee system.
Arkansas, Pages 9 on 02/18/2013