Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells Little Rock board police haven’t served protective order; mayor asks chief to follow up
Summary
A resident told the board she has been 'victimized' and that a protective order she filed had not been served; the mayor said the chief would contact her to coordinate and staff explained some protective‐order processes may involve county or court actors rather than city police.
During the citizen‑communication portion of the Sept. 2 meeting a resident used the public‑comment period to say she is being terrorized by a family member and that law enforcement had not served a protective order she submitted a week earlier.
The commenter said the person had come to her home multiple times, "dumped trash twice" and at one point "tried to run over me and my sister and my neighbor," and that repeated calls to 911 had not produced sustained patrols. She said she had been told by staff that the protective order had not been served and that she had been unable to reach the responsible officer.
Mayor Frank Scott Jr. replied that the city does not conduct back‑and‑forth questioning during public comment for sensitivity reasons but said he would ensure the matter was routed to the appropriate officials. The mayor said he would make certain the police chief or a designee would contact the resident to coordinate assistance. The transcript includes a response from the chief confirming he would call to try to help coordinate a resolution.
City staff also explained on the record that some protective‑order procedures can involve county or court processes — not exclusively city police — and that certain steps (service of process, court filings) may be under the jurisdiction of the county or the courts.
Why it matters: the exchange highlights a resident's report of ongoing threats and her concern about perceived gaps in follow‑up and service of a filed protective order. The board did not take formal action during the meeting beyond the mayor's commitment to have the chief contact the resident; no vote or directive for additional policy action was recorded in the transcript.
The resident’s name is not clearly rendered in the public transcript; the speaker is recorded as a resident presenting during the citizen‑communication period. The board's response was limited to arranging follow‑up by the chief and advising the resident of the procedural limits on city staff during public comment.
