Fort Smith board rejects measure to give Board hiring/firing authority over department heads

The Fort Smith Board of Directors on June 17 rejected an ordinance that would have shifted hiring, disciplinary and termination authority for department heads (including deputy city administrator, fire chief and police chief) from the city administrator to the seven-member board.

The ordinance was introduced at the board’s request and drew substantial public comment. Three residents urged the board to approve the change, saying it would increase accountability; other speakers, including former Mayor Sandy Sanders, urged defeat and recommended hiring a professional city administrator and restoring managerial authority to that office.

Board discussion ran nearly two hours. Supporters, including Director Christina Gitsavas, said the ordinance aims to break an “us-versus-them” culture in city hall and restore direct accountability to elected officials. Gitsavas cited Arkansas Code and Fort Smith’s own governance history as authority for the board’s power. She said department heads should feel free to speak directly to directors without fear of retaliation.

Opponents called the proposal a risk of politicizing administration. Several directors, including Director Settle, Director Camp and others, argued that operational personnel decisions are appropriate to the city administrator and that the current governance form—where the board provides strategic oversight and the administrator runs day-to-day operations—provides needed stability for a growing city.

In a roll call the motion to adopt the ordinance failed 2-4 (Directors George Gitsavas and Christina Gitsavas voting yes; Directors Settle, Martin, Good and Kemp voting no). The board did not adopt any amendment; the motion was defeated.

Public commenters highlighted competing concerns. A resident said the board already hires the city administrator and internal-audit director and asked the board to prioritize filling the internal-auditor vacancy. Another resident warned that putting 21 department heads under direct board control would create conflicting supervision and invite political hiring.

Administration and several directors said alternatives exist short of changing authority lines: the board can pass votes of no confidence, request annual or quarterly reviews, or require performance reviews and policy-based evaluations. Board members asked for further staff-driven processes such as annual reviews and formats that give department heads and subordinates a channel to provide feedback.

Quote: “Strong governance requires trust in the leadership we appoint,” a director said during discussion, arguing that boards should hold leadership accountable without taking over day-to-day operations.

What’s next: The ordinance was defeated; the board discussed but did not adopt a follow-up process at the meeting. Several directors requested future study-session work on performance reviews, hiring protocols and a possible annual review structure for the city administrator and department heads.