So the "news" dropped today that a second problematic member of the Fort Smith Board of Directors has announced that he will not be seeking reelection when his term expires ...although it really wasn't news at all.
I have been in possession of a snarky email for several weeks from the said director in which he told a citizen he wasn't going to run for reelection. Knowing he's not really a man of his word most of the time, I was hanging on to the email for future reference.
But the bottom line? This is a good news, bad news scenario.
The good news is that a surly, self-promoting, arrogant little man who won this first term in office by defeating two opponents in a race that saw 667 (7.2%) votes total cast out of 9251 eligible voters in the ward will be gone.
He then ran unopposed the second time around because people had basically thrown up their hands and said "what's the use" because it has been pretty clear if you are not the preferred candidate of the chosen few you were wasting your time and money to even try and run. (More about that later).
The bad news he still has twenty-one -and a half months to pander to his handlers and given his track record, I'm doubting that he'll do much good for the city in the interim.
This is a guy who for the first several years he was a director would reply to queries and emails from citizens with an email that had a link to his business at the bottom of the page. "Somebody" pointed it out to the city (because it's illegal to benefit from an elected position in such a manner) but the city did nothing. And he tried to ridicule the person that pointed it out.
Then "somebody" pointed it out to the state attorney general. He must have not thought it was as funny after that, because he quit doing it.
This is a guy who knowingly and deliberately violated the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, once after being told by the county prosecutor to not do it anymore. And he still claims the laws designed to ensure transparency in government apparently don't apply to him. Because he doesn't want them to.
This is aa guy who, at the very last BOD meeting, threw a hissy fit over some proposed language change in the city's ethic's code that would have moved thee words "appearance of wrong doing" from an appendix to the code into the actual code.
Because....you know...of the appearance of wrong doing everyone has been pointing out when discussing conflicts of interest between those that own property downtown and those voting on matters that could increase property values downtown. Apparently, the word "recusal" isn't in his vocabulary either.
This is a guy who has insulted citizens that dared to question him on the way he votes, both in emails and on social media. Latest example...he's tired of being treated like a "customer service representative and having to defend comments by" the only BOD member that has the best interest of the citizens at heart.
This is a guy who plotted and planned behind the scenes with co-conspirators to undermine the power of the Civil Service Commission, which in part played into the FOIA violations that he still denies.
I could go on. Every self-serving move, jerk-wad interaction with taxpayers and every little snicker behind the back of the citizens (that I'm aware of) probably should be detailed.
As bad as it all is....the arrogant attitude, the FOIA violations, the lock-step voting with his cohorts, his derisive disdain for the people he is supposed to be serving...just imagine what we don't know about.
Now I said all that let me say this. He was one of the two directors that voted to not hire the current fiasco we have as a City Administrator.
I raise my glass to him on that one. And I'm of legal drinking age!
So credit where credit is due. Of course, he then turned around and bought right into the agenda that got us into this current mess.
So credit partially revoked.
There is talk in the air of recall petitions and while I'm all for getting rid of most of the current BOD, the fact that one of the main problems is gone, one won't seek reelection and one hasn't announced his plan as of yet, kind of all becomes a moot point if the voters will go and do the right thing in 2020.
Oh. And there is one who should be reelected in 2020.
There are still at least two directors (one old and one new) that need to prove their mettle to the electorate and one that was handpicked that should have never been elected in the first place (in my opinion) but we have to wait until 2020 to deal with that faction.
There is a change in the wind. The people who are used to telling you how to vote and who to vote for still can't believe that you refused to do what you were told about the Marshal Museum tax situation.
As it has been said, they never saw it coming. As as I'm saying now, they don't like it.
As they get ready to roll out their run at a prepared food tax next year, let's remind them who we are.
