Pulaski County advisory board forms three subcommittees, approves survey plan with UALR researcher

Pulaski CountyReorganizational Advisory Board members approved the previous meeting's minutes, appointed members to three subcommittees and discussed a tiered survey approach proposed by a University of Arkansas at Little Rock researcher to collect information from elected officials.

The board approved appointments for three subcommittees: Kendra Collins and Danny Bradley for the sheriff and county clerk grouping; Rosalind Middleton, Angela Huffman and one board member for the county judge, coroner and surveyor grouping; and Louis Calderon, Steve Owen and Tracy Shine for the assessor, treasurer and collector grouping. Each appointment was made by motion, seconded and approved by voice vote.

The board then turned to staffing and expectations and invited Dr. Slagle of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to summarize a proposed survey. Dr. Slagle said, "I think a tiered approach for the survey would make the most sense, with the elected officials being the initial survey," and described following that initial, Likert-scale survey with targeted 1-on-1 interviews and subsequent surveys of department staff or other stakeholders as needed. He said the simplified initial instrument would minimize open-ended questions and could be "ready to go next week or two" depending on edits.

Board members discussed logistics for the survey and interviews. The board agreed the initial web-based survey should go to elected officials, who would be asked to rely on their department heads to gather detailed information; subcommittees would then schedule interviews with elected officials and determine whether to request department heads to attend those meetings or to hold separate follow-up sessions. Dr. Slagle agreed to provide an online draft the board could review and to program the survey quickly for review.

The board agreed to use subcommittees for the interviews rather than convening the full advisory board, and members volunteered to lead scheduling for their respective subcommittees. Staff (Justin) and counsel (Adam) committed to coordinate meeting space, scheduling and to distribute Dr. Slagle's draft for review. Adam indicated he would provide a memorandum summarizing the constitutional and statutory framework relevant to the offices under review.

On timing, members discussed a possible two- to four-week response window for the initial survey depending on question detail, and a target timeline tied to an ordinance deadline discussed during the meeting (January 30 was referenced as the ordinance deadline). The board planned a short Zoom meeting to review the revised survey draft and set the final response window before distributing the instrument.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn that passed by voice vote.