Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Organization Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pulaski County advisory board orders baseline survey, creates three subcommittees and notes member resignation
Summary
At its second meeting, the Pulaski County Reorganizational Advisory Board reviewed historical reports and legal materials, voted to ask UA Little Rock to draft baseline survey questions, formed three subcommittees to review elected offices and departments, and recorded the resignation of member Susan Inman.
The Pulaski County Reorganizational Advisory Board voted to ask the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to draft baseline survey questions to guide the board's review of county offices and created three subcommittees to divide the work. The board also recorded the resignation of member Susan Inman and directed staff to notify the county judge for a replacement nomination.
The vote to request draft survey questions was made by voice and carried without opposition after a motion to ask Dr. Derek Slagle, director of the School of Public Affairs at UA Little Rock, to prepare “bench‑line” questions. Dr. Slagle told the board he could produce draft questions quickly and would work collaboratively with members to refine them: “start with the what you're wanting to find and we can work backwards on what are appropriate questions to answer those questions,” he said.
Board members spent the meeting reviewing materials staff provided in a binder and online folder, including organizational charts, historical reports from 1987, 1991 and a 1992 reorganization report, advisory opinions from the state attorney general, and past studies of the county detention facility. Staff noted that some executive summaries were still outstanding from the county judge's office, the circuit clerk and the sheriff's office.
The board debated how best to collect information from elected county officers and department heads before dividing into subcommittees. Some members preferred written responses and surveys first; others wanted interviews and executive summaries in hand to shape survey questions. To advance near-term work, the board approved a motion (voice vote) to create three subcommittees to conduct focused reviews: one to cover the sheriff and the circuit/county clerk offices, one to cover the county judge's office (including the surveyor and coroner functions), and one to cover assessor/treasurer/collector responsibilities.
Chair (name not specified) said staff would facilitate assigning members to subcommittees at the next meeting once members had time to review incoming documents. Members noted the committees should be flexible about meeting times and locations; the board approved May 20 at 3 p.m. as the next meeting date.
Staff also informed the board that member Susan Inman will be unable to serve for medical reasons and that the county judge will be asked to nominate a replacement. "We've received a resignation email from Miss Inman, and so that's been provided to the county judge," a county staff member, Adam, said. The board did not take a formal vote on the vacancy but directed staff to follow the nomination process.
During discussion, staff and members referenced historical materials intended to give context to the review: a 1989 feasibility study and later studies, including a 2016 countywide justice-system review; ordinances establishing the advisory board in 1987 and a 1991 follow-up study; and attorney general opinions and constitutional or statutory citations placed in the shared folder for members to review. The board emphasized that the review is about form and function of offices, not personal evaluations of incumbent officers.
Dr. Slagle described survey logistics and capabilities the University Survey Research Center can provide, including web-based implementation and display logic to tailor questions to different respondent types. He offered to draft initial questions and to work with board members to consolidate and refine them for circulation ahead of the next meeting.
The meeting concluded after motions to (1) ask Dr. Slagle to prepare draft survey questions and (2) create the three subcommittees were moved, seconded, and approved by voice vote. No formal roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript of those motions.
Upcoming items the board identified for the next meeting include receiving any outstanding executive summaries from county departments, reviewing Dr. Slagle's draft survey questions, and finalizing subcommittee membership and schedules.
