Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

County JPs Flirt With Disaster

SNAFU -- a military term meaning: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

This is much the way the Clark County Quorum Court operated in its meeting Monday night, as no action was taken and turmoil was the order of the evening.

The court failed to follow its agenda, and in one instance didn't recognize one of the items placed therein to be dealt with until a motion to adjourn had been sought.

An ordinance to amend ordinance 92-4 for distributing appropriated funds from the fire protection services program, Act 833 monies, in the county was supposed to be one of the first issues the justices of the peace discussed.

However, when Clark County Judge Grady Runyan brought the matter up, the court said nothing. No motions were made. No words, in fact, were spoken on the issue.

Runyan then moved on to other agenda items, until, as the meeting neared its end and a motion to adjourn had been sought, someone on the county's governing body spoke up and said it had not been addressed.

Runyan said he had brought it up, but nothing had been said. "It died for lack of a motion," he said.

But, he agreed to let Clark County Office of Emergency Services Coordinator Jim Burns speak.

Burns said Center Ridge is working to establish a volunteer fire department. Because of this, it needs Act 833 funds, which means the funding formula must be amended to include the new department.

When all was said and done, the court voted against revamping the funding formula and helping the Center Ridge VFD. JP's Bill Conine, Bill Kirksey and Bill Newton all voted no on having the ordinance read, which killed it.

Runyan said the court had a problem with how the formula would have been reworked, and were not opposed to the Center Ridge VFD as it is in an area which needs such services.

The two most problematic ordinances would have hamstrung the county judge.

One was an ordinance restricting the appropriation of county general, road and sanitation fund revenues for capital outlays, lease-purchase agreements and contracts for $2,000 or more.

The other sought to change the procedure the county has for operating the road and bridge department and budget. Under this ordinance, a standing road committee based on districts would be in control of the department instead of the county judge.

Both ordinances were sponsored by Kirksey, who, at the end of the meeting, said he had only brought them up for discussion so the court could talk about them.

Kirksey and Runyan were the only two to bother talking about the ordinances.

Both, though, would also violate standing state law, with the second being unconstitutional in Arkansas.

However, before this came before the court, the equipment committee had reported on bids received for two Mack trucks for the road and bridge department.

Shipley turned in the lowest bid for the two trucks at $120,836.76, while Tri-State's bid was close at $122,900. Both were for one truck with a dump body and one without a dump body.

Each company said they would agree to take one of the county's truck as a trade in.

Newton recommended the court purchase new equipment on a rotating five-year basis in order to keep it in good working shape.

However, no action was taken on the matter.

When the ordinances to control the county road and bridge budget and operation came up, Kirksey cited the truck issue as being a reason such committees were needed.

Runyan said this issue had been brought before the court, and had gone before a committee. He said only two members of the committee bothered to show up for the meeting, and one of them was in a hurry to leave.

Kirksey said the court could pass both amendments, which could then be challenged in court, should the current county judge, or a future one so decide.

Runyan informed the court if the ordinances were passed, he would veto both.

David Morris, assistant director with the Association of Arkansas Counties, said under the Arkansas Constitution of 1874, the road and bridge department is under the jurisdiction of the county judge.

This was further stated in Amendment 55 of 1977 by the Arkansas General Assembly when county government was reconstructed into its current form.

This amendment, Morris said, gives the judge the power to preside over the quorum court without a vote, veto power and authority over the road and bridge department.

This is also covered under statutory law 14-14.1101, which basically states the same thing.

The court, on the other hand, does control appropriations from the road fund.

But, Morris said, the ordinance proposed with a $2,000 cap is more stringent than the state's of $10,000. State law takes precedent over county ordinances in such matters.

"This job to me," Runyan said, "is to help the county. I'm retired. I don't need the money. I saw needs in the county and wanted to help."

He said had the two ordinances been passed, he would have seriously considered tendering his resignation.