Pulaski County committee sets Aug. 4 deadline for reorganization surveys, schedules follow-up interviews

The Pulaski County Reorganization Committee set an Aug. 4 deadline for elected-official surveys and tentatively scheduled subcommittee interviews for Aug. 19 and 20, the committee decided at its meeting Tuesday.

The committee, chaired in proxy by Tracy Shine, discussed next steps for a countywide reorganization review and the role of subcommittees, survey distribution and follow-up interviews with elected officials. "I emailed you a memo that laid out plain as I think I can, the the work that's before you," said Adam, a county staff member who presented the overview and described the committee's authority limits, legal constraints and a recommended process for analysis and transition planning.

The committee emphasized that some duties and offices are governed by state law or the Pulaski County quorum court and that certain changes could require a referendum. Adam said, "If authority to do a thing or responsibility to do a thing is assigned by the general assembly, by statute, it's going to take a vote of the people requested by the quorum court after recommendation from y'all, to transition that authority or responsibility."

Committee members and staff agreed to a two-step information-gathering approach: (1) an initial targeted survey to the five elected officials to be returned by Aug. 4; and (2) contingent, narrower or broader follow-up surveys or interviews depending on what questions arise from the initial responses. Justin, a committee staff member handling logistics, said he would compile the surveys and prepare both an aggregate summary for the full committee and individual subcommittee breakdowns once responses arrive.

The committee discussed how to structure the post-survey interviews. Members agreed initial interviews should focus on the elected official, with up to two accompanying staff or department heads permitted when necessary to answer technical questions. One member said that large offices such as the sheriff's office may need chiefs or deputies present to respond fully.

Tentative scheduling set subcommittee interviews to begin Aug. 19 and continue Aug. 20, with meetings likely in the late afternoon (around 2–4 p.m.) to accommodate officials' schedules. Committee members asked staff to reach out to elected officials to confirm availability; Justin said he had sent the survey the prior Monday and was re-sending it to one recipient after an email error.

Members also discussed the possibility of a second, broader survey later in the process aimed at employees and external stakeholders if subcommittees determine additional input is needed. "If the subcommittee feels that, nah, we're good, then that's fine," Adam said. "But I would, you know, maybe presume that, you know, after you hear from the elected officials that that would spark some questions that you feel are or maybe, you know, would would warrant some some broader questions."

The committee closed the meeting after confirming the timeline and next steps. No ordinance or formal referral to the Quorum Court was made at this meeting; members discussed that some proposed reorganizations would require additional legal review and might need Quorum Court approval or voter referral depending on whether duties are set by statute or by constitutional office.

The committee's work follows a reorganization review last undertaken in 1991; the presenter urged subcommittees to compare current office functions with proposed models and to recommend timelines and transition steps if changes are proposed.