HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-18 - Agendas - FinalCITY OF
Wige le
Y ARKANSAS
Ordinance Review Committee
February 18, 2015
2:00 p.m.
City Hall Room 326
Members:
Justin Tennant (Chairman) -Alderman Ward 3
Adella Gray -Alderman Ward 1
Matthew Petty -Alderman Ward 2
John La Tour -Alderman Ward 4
City Staff:
Kit Williams, City Attorney
1. Call to Order
AGENDA
2. New Business
a. Discussion of proposed ordinance to enact Article III Procedure to Exercise Initiative
and Referendum Rights of Chapter 36: Elections.
b. Schedule next meeting and ordinance to be reviewed.
3. Adjourn
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE:
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. if you wish to address the Ordinance
Review Committee on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public
comment Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address. Address
your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the
appropriate appointed official, staff, or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point,
and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour
notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330.
As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers.
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Legistar ID No.: c2°( 5 — ocx
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
FOR: City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015
FROM:
City Attorney Kit Williams
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT:
AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT ARTICLE III PROCEDURE TO EXERCISE
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM RIGHTS OF CHAPTER 36: ELECTIONS
INTO THE FAYE1'1EVILLE CODE TO CLARIFY THE PROPER PROCEDURE
FOR THE CITIZENS' RIGHT OF THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
APPROVED FOR AGENDA:
City Attorney Kit Williams Date
srtrotI#Nav Si 2.015
Paul Becker, Finance Director Date
LL �
r, Chief of Staff
Mayo
Lioneld
ordan
y/ r/20/%
ate
‘43/±c___
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor
City Council
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney „
DATE: December 23, 2014
RE: Avoiding future litigation over ballot language for initiated or
referred local legislation
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Patti Mulford
Paralegal
Prior to the recent referendum concerning the Civil Rights
Administration ordinance, Fayetteville had not been forced into any
litigation over a referendum's or initiative's proposed ballot language.
Referral of the Road Impact Fee and Smoking Ordinance complied with the
tests set forth for state legislation referendums and initiatives {A.C.A. § 7-9-
107 (c)} and the forms set forth for county ordinances {A.C.A. § 14-14-917
(d)}. However, neither of these statutes are controlling over the
referendum or initiative of city ordinance because Amendment 7, now
codified as Article 5 § 1 of the Arkansas Constitution places procedural
power in the City Council.
"Municipalities may provide for the exercise of the initiative
and referendum as to their local legislation."
This is only a general grant of procedural power to municipalities
which must still follow other provisions of the Arkansas Constitution
regarding how many signatures of local voters need to be obtained and the
time period for the petition sponsors to gather such signatures. Other
constitutional procedures including submission of the petitions of the City
Clerk, the Clerk's examination and decision regarding the petition's
1
sufficiency and the granting of additional time to the sponsors must be
followed and cannot be varied by local legislation.
In order to avoid future litigation, to bring our procedure in line with
state and county referendums and initiatives, and to eliminate potentially
misleading wording in referendums rejected by state law {A.C.A. § 7-9-107
(c)}, I have drafted a proposed new section to be enacted into Chapter 36:
Elections of the Fayetteville Code. This proposal is attached to this memo.
This proposed ordinance is one of the rare times that I believe it is
appropriate to have any legislation proposed by an elected official other
than an Aldermen or the Mayor (through his staff). I believe I am
empowered to present such ordinance because it concerns a legal issue for
the Fayetteville Code and especially because it generated litigation in
which Fayetteville was recently sued by opponents of a referendum in
Circuit Court. That suit brought to my attention the need for local
legislation as authorized by Article 5 § 1 of the Arkansas Constitution to
clarify proper procedure and wording of any initiative or referendum of
local legislation.
As you see, I placed a difficult, but obtainable burden on myself and
my successors as Fayetteville City Attorney to quickly examine, analyze
and either certify or correct any proposed initiative or referendum petition
within two business days. Such rapid analysis is always necessary for
referendum petitions and could be necessary for initiative petitions.
Please review my proposed ordinance and let me know if you believe
changes, additions or deletions would be advisable. I plan to submit this
with the Tentative Agenda for the January 20th City Council meeting.
2
§ 7-9-104. Form of initiative petition --
Sufficiency of signatures.
(a) The petition for an ordinance, act, or
amendment proposed by initiative shall be
on substantially the following form:
Initiative Petition
(b) The information provided by the person
on the petition may be used as evidence of
the validity or invalidity of the signature.
However, if a signature of a registered
voter on the petition is sufficient to verify
the voter's name, then it shall not be
adjudged invalid for failure to sign the
name or write the residence and city or
town of residence exactly as it appears on
voter registration records, for failure to print
the name in the space provided, for failure
to provide the correct date of birth, nor for
failure to provide the correct date of signing
the petition, all the information being an aid
to verification rather than a mandatory
requirement to perfect the validity of the
signature.
(c) No additional sheets of voter signatures
shall be attached to any petition unless the
sheets contain the full language of the
petition.
(d) (1) The signature section of the
petition shall be formatted and shall
contain the number of signature lines
prescribed by the Secretary of State.
(2) Before the circulation of a
statewide petition for signatures, the
sponsor shall file a printed petition part with
the Secretary of State in the exact form that
will be used for obtaining signatures.
§ 7-9-105. Form of referendum petition
-- Sufficiency of signatures.
(a) The petition and order of referendum for
an ordinance or act shall be on
substantially the following form:
Referendum Petition
(b) The information provided by the person
on the petition may be used as evidence of
the validity or invalidity of the signature.
However, if a signature of a registered
voter on the petition is sufficient to verify
the voter's name, then it shall not be
adjudged invalid for failure to sign the
name or write the residence and city or
town of residence exactly as it appears on
voter registration records, for failure to print
the name in the space provided, for failure
to provide the correct date of birth, nor for
failure to provide the correct date of signing
the petition, all of that information being an
aid to verification rather than a mandatory
requirement to perfect the validity of the
signature.
(c) No additional sheets of voter signatures
shall be attached to any petition unless the
sheets contain the full language of the
petition.
(d) (1) The signature section of the
petition shall be formatted and shall
contain the number of signature lines as
prescribed by the Secretary of State.
(2) Before the circulation of a
statewide petition for signatures, the
sponsor shall file a printed petition part with
the Secretary of State in the exact form that
will be used for obtaining signatures.
§ 7-9-107. Approval of ballot titles and
popular names of petitions prior to
circulation -- Publication.
(a) Before any initiative or referendum
petition ordering a vote upon any
amendment or act shall be circulated for
obtaining signatures of petitioners, the
sponsors shall submit the original draft to
the Attorney General, with a proposed
legislative or ballot title and popular name.
(b) Within ten (10) days, the Attorney
General shall approve and certify or shall
substitute and certify a more suitable and
correct ballot title and popular name for
each amendment or act. The ballot title so
submitted or supplied by the Attorney
General shall briefly and concisely state
the purpose of the proposed measure.
(c) If, as a result of his or her review of the
ballot title and popular name of a proposed
initiated act or a proposed amendment to
the Arkansas Constitution, the Attorney
General determines that the ballot title, or
the nature of the issue, is presented in
such manner that the ballot title would be
misleading or designed in such manner
that a vote "FOR" the issue would be a vote
against the matter or viewpoint that the
voter believes himself or herself casting a
vote for, or, conversely, that a vote
"AGAINST" an issue would be a vote for a
viewpoint that the voter is against, the
Attorney General may reject the entire
ballot title, popular name, and petition and
state his or her reasons therefor and
instruct the petitioners to redesign the
proposed measure and the ballot title and
popular name in a manner that would not
be misleading.
(d) If the Attorney General refuses to act or
if the sponsors feel aggrieved at the
Attorney General's acts in such premises,
the sponsors may, by petition, apply to the
Supreme Court for proper relief.
§ 14-14-917. Initiative and referendum
elections.
(d) Ballot Specifications for Initiative
and Referendum Measures. Upon receipt
of any initiative or referendum measure
certified as sufficient by a county clerk, it
shall be the duty of the members of the
county board of election commissioners to
take due cognizance and to certify the
results of the vote cast thereon. So that
electors may vote upon the ordinance or
measure, the board shall cause the ballot
title to be placed on the ballot to be used in
the election, stating plainly and separately
the title of the ordinance or measure so
initiated or referred to the electors with
these words:
"FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE (OR
REFERRED) ORDINANCE (OR
AMENDMENT)
NO.
AGAINST PROPOSED INITIATIVE (OR
REFERRED) ORDINANCE (OR
AMENDMENT)
NO.
11
In arranging the ballot title on the ballot, the
commissioners shall place it separate and
apart from the ballot titles of the state acts,
constitutional amendments, and the like. If
the board of election commissioners fails
or refuses to submit a proposed initiative or
referendum ordinance when it is properly
petitioned and certified as sufficient, the
qualified electors of the county may vote
for or against the ordinance or measure by
writing or stamping on their ballots the
proposed ballot title, followed by the word
"FOR" or "AGAINST", and a majority of the
votes so cast shall be sufficient to adopt or
reject the proposed ordinance.
FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES
TITLE III ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 36: ELECTIONS
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
36.01 Initiative Petitions; When To Be
Filed
All municipal initiative petitions shall be filed pursuant to
Amendment 7 of the Constitution of the State of
Arkansas found in Article 5 §1 of the Arkansas
Constitution. These initiative petitions shall be filed no
later than 83 days before the general election date.
(Code 1965, §2-22.1; Ord. No. 2472, 10-3-78; Code 1991,
§36.01; Ord. 5528, 9-18-12)
State law reference(s)--Form of initiative petition -
sufficiency of signatures, A.C.A. §7-9-104.
36.02-36.14 Reserved
ARTICLE II
REFERENDUMS
36.15 When Petition To Be Filed
All referendum petitions under Amendment 7 to the
Constitution of the State of Arkansas must be filed with
the City Clerk within 31 days after the passage of the
ordinance to which it relates.
(Code 1965, §2-19; Ord. No. 588, 12-21-25; Code 1991,
§36.15)
State law reference(s)--Form of referendum petition -
sufficiency of signatures, A.C.A. §7-9-105(a).
36.16 — 36.99 Reserved
CD36:3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT ARTICLE III PROCEDURE TO EXERCISE
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM RIGHTS OF CHAPTER 36:
ELECTIONS INTO THE FAYETTEVILLE CODE TO CLARIFY THE
PROPER PROCEDURE FOR THE CITIZENS' RIGHT OF THE INITIATIVE
AND REFERENDUM
WHEREAS, Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution (now codified as Article 5 §
1) states: "Municipalities may provide for the exercise of the initiative and referendum as to their
local legislation;" and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has been granted express authority to provide "for the
exercise of the initiative and referendum as to counties," (Amendment 7 of the Arkansas
Constitution) and has enacted A.C.A. § 14-14-917 Initiative and referendum elections to
provide for the proper exercise of the initiative and referendum for county ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the lack of clarity for proper municipal referendum procedure led to
litigation against Mayor Jordan, the City Council and City Clerk Sondra Smith after she certified
the last referendum petition for a special election; and
WHEREAS, this litigation can be avoided in the future if the City enacts proper
procedures modeled upon long established state law for state and county initiatives and
referendums.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby enacts
Article III Procedure To Exercise Initiative and Referendum Rights of Chapter 36: Elections
into the Fayetteville Code to clarify the proper procedure for the citizens' right of the initiative
and referendum for municipal legislation as follows:
Page 2
Ordinance No.
"Article III Procedure. To Exercise Initiative And Referendum Rights
§ 36.20 Initiative and Referendum Petitions
Pursuant to Article 5 § 1 of the Arkansas Constitution, the City
establishes the following procedure for the exercise of the citizens' right of the
initiative and referendum of city legislation.
(a) Petitions Must Be Submitted To City Attorney For Certification Or
Correction.
Before any initiative or referendum petition ordering a vote upon any
municipal legislation shall be circulated to obtain signatures, the sponsor shall
submit the original draft of the petition with the attached legislation to the City
Attorney with any proposed legislative or ballot title.
(b) Review And Certification Or Correction Within Two Business Days.
(1) Within two business days, the City Attorney shall approve and
certify or shall substitute and certify a more suitable and correct petition
and/or ballot title.
(e)
(2) The City Attorney shall ensure the form of any initiative petition
complies with A.C.A. § 7-9-104.
(3) The City Attorney shall ensure the form of any referendum petition
complies with A.C.A. § 7-9-105.
(4) The City Attorney shall ensure that any ballot title conforms with
A.C.A. § 14-14-917 (d) and A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (c) so as not to be
misleading to voters.
Appeal To Circuit Court.
If the City Attorney fails to act within two business days after receipt of
the proposed initiative or referendum petition or if the sponsors feel aggrieved by
the City Attorney's actions or proposal, they may immediately file suit in the
Washington County Circuit Court.
(d) Extension Of Time For Petitioners May Be Granted By Circuit Court.
If the Circuit Court grants the sponsors their requested relief related to the
proper form of the petition or ballot title, the time when the referendum petitions
must be filed shall be extended until 31 days after the Court's decision is
Page 3
Ordinance No.
announced as long as Article 5 § 1 of the Arkansas Constitution's provision of a
maximum 90 days after the passage of the legislature is not violated."
PASSED and APPROVED this 20th day of January, 2015.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
F
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney -
DATE: January 20, 2015
RE: Need for referendum procedural ordinance
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Patti Mulford
Paralegal
There has been some question in the press about why I would submit
for your consideration an ordinance to clarify that municipal ordinance
referendums should follow the same forms and procedures as county
ordinance referendums and state statute referendums. It is alleged I seek
to give the City government unfair control over ballot language for
referendums. However, I merely think that city ordinance referendum
proponents should follow the same procedures as they would to challenge
a county ordinance or State Act. Is it unfair to treat city ordinances the
exact same way the State Legislature has required county ordinances and
State Acts be treated in a referendum?
Rather than mistreating referendum petitioners, I listened to the
attorneys who represented Repeal 119. On August 23, 2014, Repeal 119's
attorney, Stephanie Nichols, emailed me with questions about the
referendum petition: "Do either of you know if a ballot title or popular
name is required for a municipal referendum? We have not been able to
get a definitive answer on that from the statutes, some of which seem to
apply to municipalities and some do not." (copy of email attached).
When the City Council met on October 7, 2014 to set the special
election date, Repeal 119's attorney Travis Story and I did not agree on
1
everything, but we did agree the law about referendums and ballot titles
was "very murky."
I said: "What we agree on is that election law, especially on
Municipal Referendums is really vague. There are no cases I could find
where the Supreme Court has ever made any interpretation on Municipal
Referendums. They make all their decisions on state actions and issues
which are much better described by the statute. Maybe we could bring a
little light into these referendum elections for municipal ordinances.
Something needs to be done. I would ask the legislature to take another
look at this and provide us some guidance like they do with counties.
Counties have a very clear system about what their petitions and ballots
are supposed to look like."
Then Travis Story said: "I agree with Mr. Williams that the law on
this part is very murky and at this point we have agreed to disagree on the
law. What we are trying to do, is do something short of throwing this into
litigation. Nobody wants that."
Unfortunately, we got litigation when a citizen sued the whole City
Council, Mayor Jordan and City Clerk Sondra Smith challenging the
validity of Sondra's certification of the referendum petition, how the
signatures were obtained and how the ballot was worded. Repeal 119
properly intervened and after motions, briefs, discovery, and depositions,
Judge Lindsey conducted a trial over a two day period. I successfully
defended the City Clerk's certification of the referendum petition and
defeated Repeal 119's petition to force Sondra to evaluate and certify
another thousand signatures which were not needed for the petitioner's
certification.
I also supported the City Council's Resolution which would have
worded the ballot as any county ordinance referendum would have been
worded. I noted in Paragraph 40 of our Answer "that the language
approved by the Election Commission does not exactly match the ballot
title that was included in the certified petition," because it used a portion of
the ordinance title instead of just numbers. The Judge ruled the slightly
amended title proposed by the Election Commission was satisfactory.
2
The City might have been sued even without the "murky" nature of
the law surrounding municipal ordinance referendums. However, this is
the first time the City of Fayetteville has been sued over a referendum
petition on ballot wording issues since I became Fayetteville City Attorney
in 2001. I told you during the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting that
"(s)omething needs to be done," and, pursuant to Amendment 7, it is the
City Council rather than the Legislature that has been granted the authority
to "provide for the exercise of the initiative and referendum as to their local
legislation." However, I thought I should wait until the Civil Rights
Ordinance issue was resolved before presenting anything to you.
Shortly after the 52/48 referendum election repealed the Civil Rights
Administration Ordinance, there was some discussion about trying to
amend it and reconsider that amended ordinance. I did not believe
consensus could ever be achieved that way. However, I remembered
Alderman Tennant's strong statements during the November 18, 2014 City
Council Meeting about not turning his back on the civil rights issue if what
he termed the very flawed Civil Rights Administration ordinance was
repealed. Alderman Tennant said: "I do hope that if the ordinance does
not pass or if it is repealed that we will not turn away from this and we will
do something that works for everyone and I intend to help with that."
I thought that if I removed the uncertainties of new definitions and
used the two decade old definitions of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act; if
churches and other religious organizations were exempted even more fully
than they are in the Arkansas Civil Rights Act; and if a civil enforcement
measure (possible revocation of a business license) was proposed, then I
could help Alderman Tennant advance his intention to "write something
that is really inclusive instead of divisive."
However, since no alderman approached me to sponsor this
ordinance, my effort to find consensus has failed. I believe that Arkansas
Legislature will soon remove the power of any Arkansas City to pass an
ordinance to further protect its citizens from discrimination. Thus,
Fayetteville will never face this civil rights issue again.
3
With the Civil Rights Ordinance no longer a possibility, I decided
that I should still address the "very murky" law surrounding municipal
ordinance referendum language. Thus, I have presented this possible code
section to clarify the procedure for persons seeking to exercise their
initiative or referendum rights. This code section basically says "Just
follow the procedures and forms required by the State Legislature for
referendums concerning state acts and county ordinances." Let's treat all
referendums the same way, a level playing field, no voter surprise, no
electioneering manipulation by either the government or the petitioners.
Some may think that our government treats those seeking to repeal
its ordinances unfairly or tries to obstruct their referendum rights. Let me
read you an email from Stephanie Nichols dated August 22, 2014 sent to
City Clerk Sondra Smith and me:
"Thank you for your review. You always go above and beyond
in your promptness and are one of the most easy to work with
attorneys I have ever dealt with. I sincerely appreciate it and
have told several Fayetteville citizens about your fairness and
ease to work with. Have a great weekend! Stephanie Nichols."
The only reason I placed the responsibility to review and certify or
correct a proposed referendum petition upon the City Attorney is to
hopefully prevent a legally improper petition from being circulated and
later being either rejected by the Court or having to be recirculated because
of some mistake. As you see from Stephanie's email, Sondra and I do not
try to obstruct a referendum, but instead help the applicants properly
exercise their constitutional right for a referendum. We always favor
democracy.
The two business day review should be a help, a boon to someone
who probably has never had to prepare a referendum petition before. I am
only aware of three referendum petition efforts in my fourteen years of
service as City Attorney. Two were successful and one led to the repeal of
an ordinance. This infrequency means that most persons, even most
lawyers will have little experience. Therefore, it is fair to place this burden
of review and correction on the City Attorney.
4
Williams, Kit
From: Williams, Kit
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:15 AM
To: Law Office of Stephanie Nichols; Smith, Sondra
Cc: Pennington, Blake
Subject: RE: Ballot Title/Popular Name?
Stephanie,
I think you have reduced the printing size of the ordinance too much and could make this a point of
attack for your opponents. If the ordinance was not easily readable by every signer, the requirement of attaching the
ordinance would not be achieved. I think a two sided page can contain the ordinance that would be large enough for
almost anyone to read and thus, less susceptible to legal attack. It would need to be attached to each petition.
I anticipate that title of the ballot issue would tract pretty closely to the title of the ordinance. I agree
that the statutes I have looked at are not nearly as clear for municipal referendums as for state referendums. I am
working on other briefs that soon will be due and cannot spend too much time now researching this point.
Kit Williams
Fayetteville City Attorney
479.575.8313
From: Law Office of Stephanie Nichols[mailto:stephanie.nichols777@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 4:17 PM
To: Williams, Kit; Smith, Sondra
Subject: Ballot Title/Popular Name?
Kit and Sondra,
Local attorney Travis Story is working on a petition, and I am assisting him. He has revised the petition from
what I sent you last night. (Thank you for the information, Sondra). Do either of you know if a ballot title and
popular name is required for a municipal referendum? We have not been able to get a definitive answer on that
from the statutes, some of which seem to apply to municipalities and some which do not. However, the form in
the statute, which Sondra sent last night, does indicate a placement for a ballot title/popular name. Is this
required, or is this something that can be left off when it is not a statewide initiative?
If it is required, does this petition drafted by Travis seem to present any problem as far as the ballot title/popular
name portion? Do either of you see any other problems as well? (There are a couple of typos, but we can easily
take care of that. I am just concerned with the substantive part right now). Also, is it OK to have the ordinance
on one sheet behind the signature page like we have it? I can read it, but I didn't know if the smallness of the
type could possibly present a problem?
Thanks,
Stephanie Nichols
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1115
Jonesboro, AR 72403
(501) 288-2927
s
City Council Meeting Minutes
October 7, 2014
Page 7 of 18
might be the way to resolve this. Not put ourselves up as judges, but instead just do what we have
done in the past, which I believe is correct. Travis believes it is not correct and another way to go.
Maybe he's correct, but I don't know.
What we agree on is that election law, especially on municipal referendums is really vague. There
are no cases that I could fmd where the Supreme Court has ever made any interpretation on
municipal referendums. They make all their decisions on state actions and issues which are much
better described by the statute. Maybe we could bring a little light into these referendum elections
for municipal ordinances. Something needs to be done. I would ask the legislature to take another
look at this and provide us some guidance like they do with counties. Counties have a very clear
system about what their petitions and ballots are supposed to look like. The people that should
decide are one step above us, which is the county.
Travis Story: I've spoken with the local Election Commission and members of the Election
Commission for the State of Arkansas. The two things to be aware of is in November there are two
referendum matters that are going to be voted on, on the Washington County ballot. Both from
similar circumstances. It's people of other cities doing a petition to repeal city ordinances. There
will be two petitions to repeal that have been certified now to the Election Commission for
Washington County for the November General Election ballot. Both of those are laid out in a
simple to repeal ordinance number, for or against repeal of that ordinance number.
I agree with Mr. Williams that the law on this part is very murky and at this point we have agreed
to disagree on the law. What we are trying to do, is do something short of throwing this into
litigation. Nobody wants that. We believe the residents of Fayetteville want the December 9, 2014
date. October 10, 2014 is the last day for the Election Commission to put this on the ballot. They
have to have that in order to under their guidelines to be able to accomplish everything that needs
to be done. We ask that what's placed in the resolution tonight would be what is on the ballot.
Unfortunately for us, it's either good or bad. If someone says this is inappropriate and there is a
legal challenge, then we'll have to deal with that. We ask that we don't cause the confusion which
would end up having to be decided by the Election Commission and turned over to the county to
deal with. We ask the only thing to be put in the resolution tonight, having anything to do with
ballot language, would be exactly what we have submitted on all the petitions, that same language
or something that says the language of the petition shall be the ballot language. That way we could
work through the normal process. We believe it would be appropriate and allow the process to
move forward smoothly at the county level so that the election could be scheduled and the will of
the people to hold this election at a special election on December 9, 2014.
Alderman Adams: I understand you are a paid attorney representing this group. Are you a
resident of Fayetteville?
Travis Story: I am not a resident of Fayetteville. I am a business owner in Fayetteville. This is
one of those things where I wish I was a resident of Fayetteville.
Mayor Jordan: We are going to open it up for public comment. We will stay with the
amendments first.
113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Williams, Kit
From: Law Office of Stephanie Nichols <stephanie.nichols777@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:19 PM
To: Williams, Kit
Subject: Re: Final Copy of Petition
Thank you for your review. You always go above and beyond in your promptness and are one of the most easy
to work with attorneys I have ever dealt with. I sincerely appreciate it and have told several Fayetteville
citizens about your fairness and ease to work with.
Have a great weekend!
Stephanie Nichols
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Williams, Kit <kwilliamsAfayetteville-ar.gov> wrote:
I see no problems.
Kit Williams
Fayetteville City Attorney
' 479.575.8313
From: Law Office of Stephanie Nichols[mailto:stephanie.nichols777@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:57 PM
To: Williams, Kit; Smith, Sondra
Subject: Final Copy of Petition
Kit and Sondra,
Here is my final draft of a petition re Chapter 119. Do either of you see any problems with this?
Thanks,
i