Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hot Springs board tables vote on director pay after debate over ballot wording and timing
Summary
Directors debated whether to send an open-ended pay authorization to voters in a March 2026 election, raising questions about ballot text, turnout differences between primary and general elections, and whether the ballot should specify an amount. The board voted to table the ordinance and hold a work session.
The Hot Springs Board of Directors on Dec. 2, 2025 discussed Ordinance O-25-50, which would call a special election on March 3, 2026 asking voters whether the board may receive compensation under Arkansas law. The proposal drew extended debate over whether the ballot should specify a compensation amount and whether the March primary date would suppress turnout compared with a November general election.
City attorney Brian Albright told the board the statute requires voter authorization before directors may be paid and that, if authorized, the board would later set the amount by ordinance. Director Dudley Webb argued the ordinance, as drafted, would send voters a blank check because the ballot does not state a dollar amount; he also cited county turnout data showing primary turnout is lower than general-election turnout and questioned whether March is the right date to maximize voter input.
Other directors disagreed on likely compensation levels and on whether placing the measure in March would encourage potential candidates to consider running if compensation were available. Director Karen Garcia said she had received public feedback that voters prefer to know an amount before they decide; Garcia moved to table the measure and hold a work session to resolve those questions. The motion to table passed on roll call and the board will hold a work session before the next meeting so the item can be reconsidered ahead of the Dec. 23 deadline for ballot action.
Mayor Pat McCabe said he is not seeking compensation personally but supported the principle of enabling people who lack resources to serve if compensation would offset costs. The city attorney said the ballot text is contained in the ordinance itself and indicated staff could return with options if the board preferred a more specific question.
The board’s vote to table means there will be more internal discussion and at least one public work session before the board decides whether to place a compensation question on the March ballot.
