Little Rock board debates proposal to let three members vet city manager finalists; city attorney says FOIA limits trio process

A proposal to have three members of the Little Rock City Board review city manager applications and present nominees to the mayor prompted a lengthy debate over open‑meeting law and who has authority to nominate the city manager.

The measure, introduced by Vice Mayor Warren, would have three board members independently review applications and compile names for the mayor’s consideration. Vice Mayor Warren said the city has been 19 months without a permanent city manager and argued for board input in narrowing candidates. “I introduced this ... because we don't have a city manager in place. We've been 19 months without one,” Vice Mayor Warren said.

City Attorney (city attorney) told the board that Arkansas open‑meeting law applies whenever two or more members of a public body meet about public business and cautioned that a three‑member subcommittee working in concert without public notice could violate the law. He said, “anytime 2 members of the body meet on any subject, it is subjected to the Arkansas open meeting law.” He also pointed to the Little Rock municipal code, section 2‑110, adopted February 2007, which says in part that “the mayor shall have the authority to nominate, hire, or remove the city manager.”

Director Phillips raised logistical concerns about how three members would be chosen, how interviews would be noticed and whether the subcommittee's recommendations would actually bind the mayor. “That mean that's a meeting. So that mean we gotta get public notice on the foyer,” Phillips said, pressing how the process would comply with public‑meeting requirements.

Mayor (mayor) responded that the municipal code gives the mayor the nomination authority and said he will issue a written veto if the resolution passes next week. “I'm gonna pass out my my written veto,” the mayor told the board, and noted it takes eight votes to override a veto under state law.

Several board members suggested alternatives to preserve board input without violating open‑meeting law. Director Miller proposed that a single board member be included on a broader selection committee if the board rejects the mayor’s nominee; Miller said that approach would allow board input while avoiding an unlawful three‑person subcommittee. The city attorney confirmed that personnel matters can be discussed in executive session by the full board but reiterated that three members cannot meet privately and then act in concert outside a noticed meeting.

No vote was taken. The resolution remains on the agenda for the June 17 meeting, when the board expects to consider a city manager candidate in executive session. The mayor advised the board he will present a nominee to the board for affirmation and reiterated that any nominee the board rejects could prompt reopening the search.