Pulaski County review committee sets Dec. 5 deadline for subcommittee reports, plans December consolidation meeting

Speaker 1, chair of the Pulaski County Organizational Review Committee, told members on the committee’s most recent meeting that the group should move from information‑gathering to drafting recommendations and gave a timetable for the next steps. “I would like to open the floor for discussion on whether we’re really ready for that or not yet,” the chair said as the group canvassed subcommittee readiness.

The committee agreed that each subcommittee should turn its draft recommendations into a formal written report and circulate them among members for review. Speaker 4 (Kendra) proposed that “each subcommittee submit . . . a formal draft of our recommendations,” circulate drafts for review, then consolidate into a single document to take to elected officials for feedback. Members settled on a deadline: subcommittee reports should be submitted to the county for distribution by Dec. 5, with a collective committee meeting in mid‑December to discuss the three reports.

The timeline is intended to align the committee’s work with a Quorum Court reporting deadline the chair cited as Jan. 30. The chair also urged that recommendations include sufficient detail and, where appropriate, draft ordinances so the Quorum Court could consider concrete proposals: “if our charge is to try and recommend something that makes it more efficient and effective, . . . we ought to submit recommendations in ordinance form,” the chair said.

Members discussed substantive materials the committee has already received, including a memorandum from Adam Fogelman outlining centralized administrative functions and a previous assessment from Dr. Slagle. The chair cited preliminary staffing counts provided by staff member Justin — for example, 24 county employees were identified as performing information‑technology functions and other counts for purchasing, payroll and human resources were noted — as data the committee should use to identify potential consolidation opportunities.

Committee members emphasized the value of soliciting feedback from affected elected officials and department heads before finalizing recommendations. Several members said they would review the subcommittee drafts individually to identify commonalities and prepare questions for follow‑up interviews with officials such as the county judge, sheriff, assessor and treasurer.

The meeting concluded with a pro forma motion to adjourn that was seconded and approved by voice vote. The committee’s immediate next steps are written drafts from each subcommittee due Dec. 5 and a scheduled collective meeting in mid‑December to prepare a consolidated recommendation for subsequent review by elected officials and possible presentation to the Quorum Court.