News of the Membership Meeting - April 10                                                                                                                                April 11, 2007

The membership meeting at 111 Central Avenue yesterday morning was fantastic.  We had an attendance of 22 area citizens with an equal number telling us they want to be part of our group but could not attend.  Most of these were people who work.  For this reason, our next meeting and, hopefully, all future meetings will be held in the evenings.  We had a great cross-section of individuals including former city board members from 3 different cities, a couple of attorneys, several business owners or executives, and the important folks who were, quite simply, concerned citizens. 

Although every person had various individual problems and concerns, an obvious common thread was that every person present agreed that we needed to help bring accountability, honesty, transparency, and integrity to local government.  We did not adopt a mission statement or elect officers because we felt it was important to also involve those who could not attend.  We do have a nominating committee and a meeting site search committee.  If you are interesting in being an active member, please e-mail us with committees or offices you would be willing to serve in.  A complete list of the proposed committees and offices will be posted here in the near future.

Hot Springs Metro, Inc. Will Speak on Radio Thursday - April 19                                                                                                 April 10, 2007

In spite of scheduling errors forcing a reschedule, our editor will be on KZNG - 1340 AM from 7:00 AM until 8:00 AM on Thursday, April 19.  This is the local "News-Talk" station and the show is "News and Chat" with Dick Antoine.  Please tune in, call in, or whatever.  We hope to help inform the public as to what is happening in city government and to publicize next week's membership meeting.

Note to Computer Hackers                                                                                                                                                             April 2, 2007

We were recently warned that certain individuals in Hot Springs were working to find a "hacker" to gain access to our computers.  In view of the fact that our e-mail receiving PC was indeed hacked into, we decided that everyone should be privy to the information we left in our e-mail PC for such hackers.  Following is the exact text.

"Congratulations geek.  You have proven to be quite good because you managed to hack into a very secure computer.  You have no doubt noticed that there is no way to access our website from here and that there are no e-mail records or tracks from people who have contributed to our site.  In the interest of helping you, we can tell you that information resides only on a PC in Texas that is not connected to the internet or any network.  Our e-mail records are immediately sent via secure methods and then transferred via flash card to the isolated PC." 

We also wish to thank our technicians for being able to identify the hackers who infiltrated one of our PCs.  These folks have been reported to the FCC and other appropriate agencies.  Be assured that your e-mails to this web site will be protected and your e-mail address and name is always kept confidential unless you give us permission otherwise.

Astounding News: Hot Springs Metro, Inc. Will Speak To City Directors Monday Night [Commentary]                                        March 28, 2007

We never gave up and our persistence has finally paid off.  As reported earlier, we once again requested permission to speak to the city directors during an open session.  We are still recovering from the shock but, as of now, our editor is approved and is on the agenda to speak to the directors at their meeting Monday evening at 7 PM.  What is even more amazing is that the topic of our presentation is "Improper Actions by City Directors."  We just noticed that this date is also the day after April Fool's Day and wonder if there is some sort of cruel joke awaiting us.  Nonetheless, we are preparing for the presentation and invite our loyal readers to come join us, show support, or even sign up to speak even if it is only a brief comment or two.  This may be our one and only opportunity for a long time.

It was rather strange how our approval occurred.  The mayor even asked our editor to come to the lectern because he had questions.  His questions were basically, "what have our directors done wrong?"  Our editor pointed out that he would need a lot of time to describe all of the things but did give a couple of examples such as, a director improperly using his position to have a 4-way stop installed in front of his business and a director having no regard for Arkansas laws or regulations and may should not be sitting on the board because he is an embarrassment to them and the city.  The director who had had the 4-way stop sign (and blinking red light) improperly installed did become defensive and pointed out that the business he worked for at that location was a 501-C3 non-profit organization and was not making money due to the 4-way stop.  Our editor pointed out that this fact did not matter.  What mattered was that the director improperly misused his position to have the 4-way stop installed at an intersection where a traffic study clearly indicated that this intersection did not remotely meet the city's criteria for a 4-way stop.  The only reason it was installed was due to his improperly using his influence as a director.

The other item our editor proposed to speak about was the director's apparent non-compliance with the Arkansas Fiscal Responsibility Act.  This document can be reviewed by clicking here.  It was explained that the city leaders may be violating legal fiscal requirements by attempting to use funds improperly.  It was requested that both items be made "action items."  When the mayor asked what an action item was, our editor informed the mayor that an action item was an item which required action by the city board.  In these particular cases, a vote to comply with the Arkansas Fiscal Responsibility act or to condemn the continuation of directors voting for "special interest" projects or participating in items with which they had an obvious "conflict of interest."  Thanks should go to director Edwards who stated that he had received numerous calls and comments similar to the comments of our editor and thought this item should be on the agenda.  Only because of his request was the rare audience with the board permitted.

Again, if you think it is important that our directors begin to represent the people rather than their own special or selfish interests, operate within the laws and regulations, allow citizens to participate in government, and restore some modicum of trust by adopting open honest practices with accountability and transparency, you need to attend this important meeting and let your voice be heard.  There may not be another opportunity.

City Working Hard to Violate Laws and Blackmail Developers [Commentary]                                                                              March 22, 2007

If you are wondering why item 10 (Consider Ordinance O-07-35 Adopting Regulations Governing the Extension and "Connection of Municipal Water and Wastewater Services) was pulled from the city board agenda at the last moment, we think we have the answer.  It appears that the city attorney may have finally realized what certain people were telling him was correct and realized that he and the City Manager were wrong once again.  What appears to have been happening is that the city has been requiring properties that are contiguous to the city to be annexed prior to being provided with city water or sewer services.  Many consider this to be a form of blackmail irrespective of the legality.  It also seems that since this requirement has not been imposed on properties that are not contiguous, the practice is also discriminatory.  Such facts have never deterred our city leaders before and obviously were not going to deter them at last Monday's board meeting.  That is, until they were reminded that they were under a court order to cease this practice.

Apparently, or perhaps conveniently, the City Manager and city attorney did not know about the existence of a November 3, 1994 court order resultant from a lawsuit filed by no less that five improvement districts and seven individuals.  Some of the details of the suit were that Resolution 2821 approved by the city directors on June 7, 1993 required, among other things, a petition to annex, a "pre-annexation agreement," and deliver a "bill of assurance" to the city prior to being provided with water or sewer service.  The lawsuit cited the resolution and this practice as "policies and actions" that violated Article 3, Section 2, of the Arkansas Constitution because the citizens' rights to vote on annexation were "impaired and forfeited by the practices of the city."  Violations by the city of agreements with the EPA, federal grants, and numerous other violations and agreements were also cited but the final order states, "The City is now enjoined from violating those agreements by requiring annexation or promises to annex in the future as a precondition to sewer service.  The court also notes, "By Resolution 2977 adopted March 21, 1994, the present Defendants, members of the Board of Directors of the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas, repealed Resolution 2821 which is the subject matter of this lawsuit."

The court order further states, "The Defendants .... and employees of the City are permanently enjoined from doing any of the following:

    (a) Requiring as a condition of receiving hook-ups to the city sewer system the execution of an annexation or pre-annexation agreement by any property owner or other individual;

    (b) Refusing to provide sewer service to any property either inside or outside the City limits ...."

The court also ordered "that all petitions for annexation and all pre-annexation agreements and all bills of assurance mentioned in paragraph 15 above herein which were executed as a result of the requirements of Resolution 2821 are void ab initio."  The Latin term "ab inito used by lawyers simply means "from the beginning."  In layman's terms, this means that annexation and pre-annexation requirements were never legal.  The city was also required to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees, etc.  Note the similarities of the above language which was declared illegal with what is now proposed by the current City Manager, city attorney, and city board.  Excerpts from proposed Ordinance O-07-35 are as follows:

The entire proposed board resolution and ordinance may be seen on page 145 by clicking here.  You will find the following ordinance language on page 137 of the Hot Springs Code of Ordinances by clicking here.

It appears they are currently in violation of present laws or court orders.  Perhaps, they think laws or regulations that apply to sewer doesn't apply to water.  To further add liability to the city and our citizens,  the city leaders appear not to be concerned that future "Discrimination" suits will be filed since some people or areas are exempt (Industrial Parks) as the resolution does not apply to them.  Ignorance of the law, having little regard for the safety and welfare of our citizens, showing no fiscal restraint, and not allowing the citizens' voices to be heard have once again been blatantly demonstrated by our city leaders.  For more examples, read the following commentary, today's Sentinel Record editorial, and yesterday's front page headlines in the same newspaper.

Myers "Pulls Wool" Over Taxpayer's Eyes Again [Commentary]                                                                                                   March 20, 2007

The City Manager and his eager subordinates, the city directors, are working hard to build themselves a $10 million (city hall) monument on which they can place their names.  This, of course, will be at the hard-working taxpayer's expense.  Last evenings city board meeting demonstrated the lengths to which they will go to accomplish this goal.  At worst, they are violating the law by using tax money that was specifically approved and can legally only be used for the civic center project.  At best, they are violating the public's trust by misusing tax money that was approved by the citizens only for the civic center.

We have heard for months how the civic center bonds will be paid for early, likely by April 1.  What we weren't told is that Myers intends to not stop the tax until June 1 and use the estimated $2.1 million improperly collected surplus of these funds to purchase the old Ouachita Hospital (DHS building at 115 Market Street).  His pawns approved giving a former city director and A&P chair a non-refundable $50,000 to hold the property for the city until September.  It appears there may be some very questionable financial dealings here and the citizens may want to know all the gory details before so flippantly spending more of our tax dollars.  The four proposed funding sources for a new city hall listed by Myers during the March 19 city board meeting are very weak at best.  Myers listed Enterprise Funds, gambling revenues from machines at Oaklawn, state turnbacks, and the "surplus" money generated by not ceasing the half cent sales tax for the civic center bonds for a couple of months.

To determine how viable these funding sources are, we offer our view and cursory examination of each.  First, Enterprise funds are those funds collected for water, sewer, etc.  Recently, Mr. Myers stated that the water and sewer departments were self-funding but funds for other city departments were short.  In fact, his initial report was that the city could not even afford to provide our police and fire departments with an annual cost-of-living adjustment.  Numerous rate increases for city services have recently been approved by Myer's directors, some of which were quadrupled.  These facts indicate that we could likely also face significant rate increases in water and sewer services due to the funds derived from such services also having to pay for a new city hall.

Secondly, we understand that gambling machine revenues should not be considered as a firm dependable amount that can be budgeted.  In fact, we were told that it is not legal to do so.  The bottom line indicates that the gambling 'gifts' from Oaklawn are insignificant ($3,500 to $12,000) and would barley make a dent in debt service for a $10 million obligation.  Thirdly, Governor Beebe's proposed state turnback increase ($50,000 to $100,000 for Hot Springs) is strongly opposed by both Senate President Pro-Tem Jack Critcher and House Speaker Benny Petrus.  These funds are very questionable and would also make only a small contribution to the debt service of $10 million.  Finally, the $2.1 million which Myers plans to use for the property purchase will possibly be found to be illegal (see the handout).  Even if he somehow manages to get the bond counsel and city attorney to say that it is legal, this is unethical.  Whatever credibility he has could be totally destroyed when the taxpayers realize that he is extending a tax they approved for the civic center so he can declare it as a surplus and use it for a purpose other that what the taxpayer voters intended.

Is it possible that Myers already knows these funding sources will not be sufficient and he has simply moved our brilliant city board into a position where they will have no choice but to approve more rate increases for city services plus an increase in property taxes because we are too far along to go back?  Remember, Mr. Myers applied for a job in New Braunfels, Texas last year.  Could it be that if and when Hot Springs cannot recover from being so deep in debt, having exorbitant utility rates, and our taxes become unbearably high that Mr. Myers will simply apply for another job and leave us to pay for his mistakes?

Please click here to see the handout provided to the city board members at their March 19 meeting.  This handout clearly describes why it could be illegal to use tax money collected for the civic center to buy property for a new city hall.  Video of the presentation made by our editor can be seen by clicking here.  In the interim, you can see the proceedings for yourself (early in the meeting) on city channel 15 at 7 PM any evening this week.  Note that no one even questioned our editor's statements.  Maybe they just don't care what is legal or illegal.

UPDATE (3/21/07):  Please note from the record of the most recent city board meeting, radio comments of the City Manager, and quotes in today's Sentinel Record that the City Manager, city attorney, and other city representatives have admitted that they knowingly and purposely intend to provide for the collection of taxes over and above those required to pay off the civic center bonds.  This action appears to be designed for the sole purpose of creating a surplus that would otherwise not exist.  This fact is key.

Our Editorial in the Sentinel Record (March 11, 2007)                                                                                                                  March 7, 2007

Hot Springs City Board meetings often have entertainment value reminiscent of a circus but last Monday’s meeting was far more entertaining than most. This meeting got going by featuring shouting matches typically only available on cable news panel debates. And, just when you thought it couldn’t possibly get better, it did. There was quite a lot of comedic confusion, a sprinkling of timely drama, and some generous demonstrations of macho egos.

Oh, it was great fun and you simply must catch the reruns on cable channel 15 at 7 PM. It promises to be better than anything else on at that time. The only part that isn’t funny is when you realize that the participants are our elected representatives playing out personal agendas that have nothing to do with the safety, welfare, or best interests of the citizens they were elected to represent. For example, we have a director who states that he personally has a "problem with the ducks" when apparently, no other person in town has such a problem. It has previously been pointed out to this director that he has a conflict of interest because a relative of his works with a competing duck company. One of his excuses was that he didn’t consider his stepdaughter’s husband as a relative. This makes one wonder if he claimed his mother-in-law. At one point, when the rather loud melodrama was about to digress into an action thriller, the mayor told a citizen that he was "out of order" and he should "sit down." The director who started the shouting was not so admonished.

When another item which apparently was placed on the agenda by the same director came up, I pointed out that it was not appropriate for a director who owns a sign company to place sign related items on the city agenda, to participate in discussion of such items, or to vote on such items and to do so is a "conflict of interest." I mentioned no names but when a director stated that no directors owned a sign company, director Daniel spoke up and said that I was talking about him. One really needs to watch the director’s forceful diatribe on television or at Hot-Springs_Metro.org to appreciate how he handled the situation. His rude condescending attitude and attempts at intimidation included such statements as, "you know everything .... why don’t you know this only involves the ducks .... you need to do you homework," etc. etc. Please note that several minutes following his incorrect statements were spent with the assistant City Manager, the City Manager, and another director describing the plethora of items and issues the proposed ordinance would impact. Not the least of which included now allowing the sign company director to place his portable signs in Hot Springs. Despite the director acknowledging that he "will not vote," he did strongly participate in the discussion. The motion passed 4 to 2 without the director’s vote.

It is unfortunate that many of our directors still apparently have no understanding of "conflict of interest" because we continue to see unjustified 4-way stop signs installed in front of their businesses, contracts awarded to them, their friends hired for city jobs, and the list goes on. I once again have a pending request to be placed on the agenda to speak about their need to embrace open government by allowing a public forum to speak at public meetings, to represent the people rather than their friends or selfish interests, and to learn the meaning of "conflict-of-interest." What are the odds I will be allowed to speak on these items?

Mr. Daniel even stooped to publicly pointing out that I lived in the same subdivision as the duck owner. This is childish behavior. I didn’t point out that a sex-offender lived in his subdivision because neither is relative to the issue. I recently heard that politics is like show business for ugly people but I don’t fully understand why this thought again came to mind right after leaving the sideshow at city hall.

UPDATE:  Check out these videos for the real facts.  Click here for Video 1 which is our editor pointing out that directors need to learn the meaning of "conflicts of interests" and director Daniel lying about the limits of the ordinance.  Click here for Video 2 which is the Deputy City Manager and others contradicting Daniel by explaining all the things that are actually in the ordinance.  Click here for Video 3 which shows the vote and director Daniel arguing for the ordinance.

The New Official Name of the MLK Expressway and Central Avenue Intersection is "DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION."  The final vote tally was: Dysfunction Junction - 195, Malfunction Junction - 80, Crappy Crossroads - 9, Bottleneck Number Two - 8, Bush's Folly - 5, Idiotic Intersection - 1, Political Misfunction at the Junction - 1, Tim's Turnaround -1.  We sincerely thank the 300 readers who voted.

State Fines City Director, Old Ouachita Hospital Potential Site of New City Hall, Clinton Statue, Cover-ups                        February 23, 2007

We always strive to be factual and help the public dig out their own facts.  To this goal, we ask that you not take our word that city director Carroll Weatherford violated two different state laws by doing construction without being licensed or bonded while he tries to tell licensed and bonded contractors what they can and cannot do.  Rather than our telling you that he has, once again, been fined by an Arkansas State Agency, we ask that you do the research yourself.  You can review the Arkansas State Licensing Laws for yourself.  The residential contractor law is found at www.arkansas.gov/clb/pdfs_new/residential_law.pdf and the commercial contractor law is found at www.arkansas.gov/clb/pdfs_2k/licensinglaw.pdf.  Call the licensing board yourself at (501) 372-4661 and ask them if director Weatherford paid $1,800 in "settlement fees" for violating the residential contractor laws to the state on January 25, 2006 and now faces a hearing for much more serious violations of the commercial contractors laws on March 9, 2007.

You also can ask around about what is going on with the property where the old Ouachita Hospital is.  It appears there is too much secrecy about options that have been purchased including all the adjoining property to Central Avenue.  Apparently, the convention center needs to tear down city hall and make it a parking lot.  Consequently, the city needs to consolidate all departments in a common location.  It appears that our City Manager has been sort of shopping for bids on the municipal utilities building and even has some possible offers.  Oh, the Ouachita Hospital is so old that it must be torn down.  The adjoining property on Central Avenue, except for the architect's property at Market and Central, must also be bulldozed.  Once that is done, we can use the convention center bond money tax that would have, otherwise, stopped to pay for a new, multi-million dollar city hall.  Our only comment is that such plans need to be made public AND THE PUBLIC SHOULD GET A VOTE.  We don't know the merits of such a project but we would prefer that we wait for a competent board before we entrust them with such a large project and large expenditure.  The current board has blatantly ignored the safety and welfare of the public while making certain that their own self-serving or selfish interests were given priority.

Once you have finished all of that research, ask around why the Clinton statue, which was officially accepted by unanimous city board action was quietly rescinded at the last city board meeting without being specifically mentioned.  This item was published on the city's website under "new business" on the February 20, 2007 board meeting agenda but was later quietly moved to become item 10 under the consent agenda (click here for agendas).  If you ask city employees why, you will likely obtain the stock answer, "to avoid embarrassment."  That is a proper answer except for the fact that the embarrassment could be the City Managers and the directors, not the artist.  The real story appears to be very embarrassing because the artist who donated the statue was provided a fabricated story.  Is it possible that our City Manager made something up rather than telling the truth?  Only in Hot Springs does it appear that so many things need to be "covered up."   Add to this, the fact that there is no public forum at our public meetings, the City Manager recently issued directives that department heads could not speak to the press, etc., etc.  Don't additional questions also come to mind such as, "Why is our city government not more open, honest, and transparent?"  If you agree that it is time to do something about it, please contact us and join our efforts.  As a minimum, make your feelings known by sending us an e-mail.  We'll keep your name anonymous if you prefer.

Ducks, Development, and Statues                                                                                                                                         February 22, 2007

It is not too late to catch the latest city board meeting on television.  This one was not quite as downright funny as some but if you know the facts behind what is going on, it does have some entertainment value.  The downtown ducks were back on the agenda for the umpteenth time.  Also note that director Smith voted against his buddies on a couple of items and even caused those items to pass that his amigos and the mayor voted against.  It should be noted that his votes came after his buddies failed to second a motion he had made.  It has to be very embarrassing to offer a motion and absolutely no one will second it. 

The ducks item was back on the agenda because of possibly inappropriate action by the city board at a previous meeting.  It seems that director Daniel wanted the ducks to only load and unload on Central because this forces tourists to walk by Central Avenue shops (including his) and loading and unloading on Exchange Street would not bring tourists to the downtown businesses.  This could be a logical argument except for the fact that he definitely "has a dog in the fight."  When the ducks owner and an attorney pointed out that director Daniel had an additional "conflict of interest" due to his being a relative of the duck's competition, he still participated in the discussion on the motion against the ducks and voted to force them to stop loading or unloading on Exchange Street.  He did offer a brief dissertation on the definition of a relative, something along the lines that the husband of his step-daughter should not be considered as his relative.  Perhaps we are missing something here but it seems that the safety of the public should be a more appropriate consideration.  Would it not be safer to load and unload anywhere other than alongside the heavy traffic on Central?

When you examine the more esoteric aspects of motivations and subsequent actions at the most recent board meeting, you must note that all involved parties were in agreement with a recommended solution.  The duck owner wanted to get off of Central Avenue when traffic was particularly heavy.  The bed-and-breakfast opponent agreed that moving the duck one space and installing a loading space would solve her problem.  The Exchange street restaurant owner also agreed that this was a viable solution.  You would think that, "Okay, everyone is now happy," vote for this solution.  Nope, only director Maruthur and Smith voted aye.  Apparently, there were other motives in play.  Could there possibly be a hidden agenda?  Could it be that a director had convinced other directors to vote with him irrespective of whether such a sensible solution was offered?

What was the deal with allowing a home-based business on Golf Links?  Well, it appears that a fellow wanted to do leather repairs on shoes and tack at his property on a street that already has quite a few businesses.  In spite of the recommendation of the planning commission and with no apparent justification, the mayor plus directors Weatherford and Daniel voted in opposition.  This appears to be where director Smith jumped ship and voted against his amigos.  Either this confused director Jones or she is beginning to decide issues for herself.  We certainly hope the latter is the case.

Removing the "Spin" from the State of the City Report                                                                                                         February 11, 2007

Please read the front page of the February 11, 2007 Sentinel Record about the City Manager's recent "State of the City Report" prior to reading this article so that you may draw the proper contrasts.  In addition to the news article, our City Manager, our mayor, and various members of the city board of directors have been providing glowing reports of how well our city is doing.  The facts and commentary below are provided so that the public can take the 'spin' off of this report.

The official "State of the City Report" which we will refer to as SOCR says the city's most significant improvement is in economic development.  If you attend or watch any city board meeting and get past the fact that they seem to not know what is going on, you then cannot help but wonder why they give builders and developers such a hard time.  Also, check the February 7 story below.  The SOCR 'spin' brags about our largest new employer in town, ACCENT Call Center, but fails to tell us that this is a telemarketing firm.  Several other new jobs in town are also telemarketers, many in the downtown "bottleneck" area. 

The SOCR 'spin' touts our new restaurants as being economic development.  After seeing how the city managed to delay, if not totally scrub, new Home Depot shopping center and other developments, how can our hypocrites have the nerve to brag about restaurants and other retail establishments?  As we have said before, Hot Springs growth is occurring "in spite of our leadership, not because of it."  This is especially true for retail growth and service industries.

Note that the SOCR 'spin' uses selected listings from various publications depicting Hot Springs as the cheapest to live in, best property value, etc.  Note that Hot Springs ranking in the country's top 50 for major crimes was not included.   The 'spin' really goes a bit too far when it says we "realized a decrease in homicides."   Our murder rate presently exceeds that of Little Rock for 2007.  That is not per capita, that is total number of murders which includes one Friday of this week.  Shouldn't a true city report include our 2006 crime standing and perhaps, even the current standing? 

The 'spin' reports a publication touting Hot Springs as one of only 4 cities in the entire country that will have growth in the housing market for 2007.  Perhaps that publication hasn't been to Conway, Jonesboro, Fayetteville, Rogers, Springdale, Bentonville.  Oops, that's more than 4 just in Arkansas isn't it.  They obviously haven't been to south Texas or Las Vegas.  Could it be that our City Manager gets his publications from the tabloid rack at Wal-Mart?

The 'spin' refers to only to "downtown improvements" without being too specific.  Why doesn't the City Manager brag about the fact that, in 2006, we installed sidewalk bump-outs and narrowed the 4-lanes of traffic to 2-lanes?  Remember when closing the street to our multi-million dollar parking garage was also referred to as a "downtown improvement?"  Why does he separate his self-admitted biggest problem of "traffic congestion" from downtown and Dysfunction Junction and try to tie it to highway improvement projects outside of the city?

The SOCR 'spin' refers to "specific improvements" in city services but fails to mention how much more costs are associated with the excessive downtown lighting and maintenance of such extravagances as our multi-tiered waterfall where a street should be.  Improvements and expansions to parks continue to be made but seldom do these projects include the initial capital costs or the continuing maintenance costs.  The 'spin' makes it sound refreshing that we have hired a "new Sister City Coordinator."  Isn't this just another person that we taxpayers will have to pay to send with city directors to Japan twice each year.  Isn't that new employee's salary, benefits, and office expenses just another burden on our already overtaxed citizens?

The SOCR 'spin' brags that the finance department "implemented a new utility billing system."  Information we obtained indicates that we paid an exorbitant amount of money for a very expensive software system that is antiquated and is much more difficult to use than the one we already had.  Specifically, we obtained a "New World" system and scrapped an "ASI / Associated" AS-400 system that worked very well.

The SOCR 'spin' brags that our cash available of over $11 million and fund balance of over $125 million is in great shape yet the City Manager recently proposed that our police and firemen not receive a raise because the city is "financially strapped."  Apparently the 'spin' can work either way depending on what you're trying to sell at the moment.

The SOCR 'spin' brags about future projects such as "completion of three major highway projects."  The spinmiester City Manager has presented one of the three as being the new 4-lane highway project on U.S. Highway 70 west which begins at Marion Anderson Road and ends in a bypass around Lake Hamilton.  Which part of that is in the city and what did the City Manager have to do with getting that project done? 

Oh, the spin is actually deeper in other SOCR items but time constraints kept us from digging further.  At least partially, as Paul Harvey would say, "Now you know the rest of the story."

City Board Replaces Code Enforcement, Fire Chief, Fire Marshall, Construction Trades Advisory Board, Building Officials, Planning Director, others    February 9, 2007

The Hot Springs City Board took unprecedented (and possibly illegal?) action on Monday, February 5 when they overruled the city's Chief Building Inspector, the city's Fire Marshall, the city's Planning Director, the city's Fire Chief, and the unanimous ruling of the city's Construction Trades Advisory Board.  In fact, the city board members voted 6 to 1 against their own ordinances, city building codes, the International Building Code, other long-standing requirements, and the safety and welfare of the public in granting a certificate of occupancy (CO) to a building that does not even come close to meeting requirements to obtain such a certificate.  The lone dissenting vote to this strange action was from director Maruthur.

It appears, from our investigation, that there are some rather questionable circumstances behind the rationale for the board's actions.  For example, some 3 million dollars in federal funds (low income resident designations) appear to be at risk of being lost to the owner of the property if a CO is not granted by December 31, 2006.  Yes, that date is correct, December 31, 2006 at midnight.  Apparently, the board action on February 5, 2007 is somehow retroactive back to that date.  We were told it is possible that final official action was just delayed.  Perhaps, it should be of some interest that the building owner offered the city $50,000 if improvements are not forthcoming and he also made some strictly verbal commitments not to begin to move people in yet.  Besides the city board being told by all of their own employees and boards listed above that the building did not qualify for a CO on December 31, 2006, they were also told that the building does still not qualify on February 5, 2007, the date of the vote to issue an occupancy certificate.  This fact was even confirmed by the building owner and his attorney,

Besides the city board taking it upon themselves to effectively tell their own experts and professionals in their respective jobs that it is sometimes okay to totally disregard rules and regulations and to ignore the safety and welfare of the public, there seems to be a bigger question.  That question is: Have our city board members committed some form of federal fraud by becoming the primary party facilitating the obtaining of federal funds that would not, except for their questionable actions, have otherwise been available?

As always.  Please read the facts and decide for yourself.  Click here and go to item 16 on the City Board Minutes for February 5, 2007

Development Fees Increase                                                                                                                                                    February 7, 2007

City Board action raising costs for developments, home offices, zoning changes, and other improvements both inside and outside of Hot Springs breezed through with only one vote in opposition (Maruthur) at the last city board meeting.  This was not the case when the item was first presented in January.  In fact, numerous builders, developers, attorneys, and others packed the house to complain about the exorbitant increases for fees imposed on development.  Their vocal outcry complained that such huge increases were unfair, were too expensive, were politically motivated, would stifle growth, etc, etc.  It appears that their comments were effective because the directors recommended that the fees on the initial list be revisited, lowered where possible, and brought back to the board.  Some charges such as for a "pre-application conference" were eliminated and others were reduced but note that only Hot Springs charges fees for items such as "manufactured home" lot developments.  The modified comparison list for such fees charged by other cities was used as the primary basis for justifying the requested increases.  It should be noted that we discovered the fees list is not completely accurate and that other cities with much higher growth rates than Hot Springs, such as Conway and Jonesboro, are not listed.  Is it possible that cities with lower rates were intentionally left off of the list?  Where is Arkadelphia, Malvern, Hope, Texarkana, Pine Bluff, El Dorado, etc.?

Our newly hired planning director, who was obviously given the task of preparing the comparative listing, was quoted in today's Sentinel Record as saying, "At this point, revenue to this department brings in about a 35 percent recovery of the costs.  This (requested action) will take it to 40 percent.  The public is still subsidizing new development in Hot Springs"  Unfortunately, no questions were asked relative to what constitutes "the costs."  Is it not likely that "the costs" include salaries, office upkeep, supplies, etc.?  Is it not also likely that "the costs" for her department plus other departments such as streets, parks, human resources, traffic, information services, engineering, finance, police, fire, and even the city attorney and administration department does not recover even 35 percent of their costs from fees?  Excluding utilities, the bottom line is that city operations in all cities are paid for by the hard-working over-taxed citizens.  In Hot Springs, we taxpayers also have the added opportunity to pay for city director vacations to Washington DC, Reno, plus even a couple of trips to Japan each year.

Please note that the fees also now apply for developments outside the city into the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) which extends some 5 miles into the county from Hot Springs.  Although the fee list does a poor job of specifying, we assume that the left-most column titled "Hot Springs" depicts the old fee schedule and the right-most column depicts the newly approved fee schedule which goes into effect March 5, 2007.  A copy of the fee study (click here to view) complete with the amounts some selected cities charge is attached.  As always, we consider the citizens of Hot Springs intelligent enough to make up their own minds as to what is good or bad for our community.  Our primary goal is simply to provide truthful information to the public.  Our readers are capable of deciding for themselves if the new fees are reasonable or unreasonable.  Perhaps, whenever mayor Bush and manager Myers were recently boasting that Hot Springs may be growing "a little too fast" and that we may need to take steps to "slow down" our growth, this is one subtle method they are employing to accomplish that objective.

Clinton Statue.  The Rest of the Story                                                                                                                                     February 5, 2007

Although the connection may not be apparent, due to the recent death of Mr. Dick Kelly, we held off on this story.   In case you are wondering when the 9 foot tall statute of Bill Clinton will be erected, it won't.  You likely recall that the statue was officially accepted for installation on public property by a unanimous vote of the Hot Springs Board of Directors on January 8, 2007 (Click here and read item 14).  Okay, so when and where will the statue be installed?  Turns out that it will NOT be installed or even accepted.  No, the city board did not rescind their actions and they may not even know that the city has sent notice to the artist that they will not accept the statue.  A recent phone conversation with the artist confirmed this and the artist informed us that he will destroy the statue or convert it into a statue of a different person for donation to a more appreciative group.  We agree with the person who e-mailed us (February 1) that Clinton is part of Hot Spring's history and irrespective of our political party affiliation, we should embrace that fact.  It appears that the only likeness of President Clinton in Hot Springs is the relief picture beside the fountain at Central Avenue and Reserve Street.  Check it out and let us know if you think this is a good likeness of our former president.  More importantly, we need to know who is it in our city that has the power and legal authority to overrule unanimous official action by the City Board of Directors.  Again, the city's official action can be found at:  http://www.ci.hot-springs.ar.us/pdfs/agendas/2007/minutes/min1-8-07.pdf.

Police Chief Finally Appointed                                                                                                                                               February 4, 2007

Congratulations to Hot Springs Police Captain Bobby Southard who was promoted to Chief of Police.  This process took an unfortunate setback when our City Manager announced that instead of selecting a new chief, he was narrowing the candidates to two, Captain Southard and Tom Hoskins of Oklahoma City.  Tom Hoskins was the former assistant chief for Midwest City, Oklahoma and is currently working in the security department for Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.  In our humble opinion, the taxpayers of our fair city should not have paid the expenses to bring some poorly qualified and/or questionable candidates to Hot Springs.  However, we are thankful that the City Manager did eventually come to his senses and offer the job to one of our well qualified local officers.  Congratulate Chief Southard when you see him.  He is competent, qualified, and deserves our support.

News Scoop (prior to the media knowing)                                                                                                                               January 30, 2007

Mr. Dick Kelly, perhaps best known as Bill Clinton's step-father, died this afternoon following a long bout with cancer.  Bill Clinton was in town for a visit with Mr. Kelly a couple of days ago and is now back in town for the Saturday funeral at the Methodist church.  Hillary is anticipated to be in town for the funeral but efforts are being made to avoid the media and the circus atmosphere they typically bring with them.  Please keep this information to yourselves unless other media sources break the story and respect the wishes of the family.  Our condolences and prayers are with Mr. Kelly's family.  Update (1-31-07): Except for Bill Clinton being back in town, the media now knows so ignore the confidentiality recommendation.

Police Chief to be Appointed This Week                                                                                                                                 January 29, 2007

The City Manager just finished hosting the last public forum this evening which allowed the public to meet the candidates for police chief. The process has taken a couple of weeks but we were allowed to question all candidates.  Unfortunately, we didn't know these interviews were happening until a couple or three had already been finished.  Apparently, the City Manager started with Captain Souther, an impressive candidate from Florida, then a good ol' boy type from Oklahoma, and proceeded through the Arizona candidate mentioned below plus local candidates Cooley, McCoy, Montgomery, and Miller.  We have to admit that all were very smooth and well spoken, so from a PR view, all could do a good job.  We asked some rather difficult questions of all candidates we had the opportunity to question and all candidates did very well.  The only troubling thing is that Director Weatherford had the same question for two candidates.  The question was, "what do you think about creating an assistant chief position?"  Weatherford is openly supporting candidate Miller and told the audience that he "went to school with Gary" (Miller).  Several people have said that Weatherford is pushing the City Manager to hire Miller and make Montgomery the assistant chief.  It appears that Director Smith may have succumbed to pressure from Weatherford and is also working to get those two hired.  Except for the obvious cloud mentioned below for the Arizona
candidate and the attitude of the Oklahoma candidate, we observed no problem with any candidate.  We would, however, encourage the City Manager to not be intimidated by radical directors who appear to hold their positions for selfish reasons rather than working in the best interests of the public.  See more items relative to these directors below.

Editorial: Questions for Our City Leaders                                                                                                                               January 24, 2007

"You ever get that uncomfortable feeling that you're being used?"  That was the question our Editor posed to us just yesterday.  He said he sort of thought that feeling could be felt by a lot of citizens of Hot Springs.  Upon enquiring as to what he meant by that he said, "I'll get back to you soon.  I'm going to a meeting our City Manager is hosting to introduce one of the candidates to be our new police chief." 

Today, our Editor told us about the meeting and elaborated a bit further on his comments of the previous day.  It appears that he had done quite a bit of research on the police chief candidates including the one introduced by our City Manager at the meeting he attended as being the police chief for Peoria, Arizona.  Our editor's research, apparently, indicated that not only was the gentleman not the current police chief, he had resigned under pressure when a study and/or survey reported that he was a poor manager, morale in the department was low, and various other problems.  In fact, our Editor said he asked the gentlemen to explain some of the inconsistencies with information he and our City Manager provided as though he was a great candidate to be our next police chief.  Our Editor went on to state that he now had even more questions than answers.  When we asked him what questions he had, he sat down and made the following list.

1.    Why did our City Manager not tell us David Leonardo had resigned under fire instead of introducing him as the police chief of Peoria, Arizona?

2.    Why would our City Manager even consider such a candidate with this record or, as a minimum, with a cloud of potential managerial problems?

3.    Is it a coincidence that we get candidates from Arizona when our City Manager's last job was with Casa Grande, Arizona?

4.    Why was a professional search firm not used to find and prescreen qualified candidates?

5.    Are the taxpayers of Hot Springs paying for the expenses of the police chief candidates to travel to Hot Springs for their interviews?

6.    Why do we have a list of police chief candidates with some that appear to have questionable histories including womanizing and alcohol abuse?

7.    Why did the City Manager issue a written directive to city employees to not talk to the press?

8.    Does our City Manager have something to hide from the press and the public?

9.    Did our City Manager go so far as to have employees sign a form that they would not make statements about how bad or expensive the city's new billing software is?

10.  Did our City Manager dictate the purchase of specific antiquated software and, if so, for what reason?

11.  Why does the City Manager place so many items on the City Director's board agenda asking to waive the public bidding requirements?

12.  Why did the city manger (and most of the board) ignore the 600 signatures on a petition to not install the downtown bottleneck?

13.  Why did the City Manager (and most of the board) think closing the street to the new parking garage was a great idea?

14.  Why does the City Manager (and most of the board) not want the public to have a public forum section so they can speak at public meetings?

15.  Does our City Manager (and/or the city board) have something to hide from the press and the public?

16.  Is our City Manager (and most of the city board) doing a good job?

17.  Is our City Manager misusing the half-cent sales tax for fire and police by dictating exorbitant ($70+) oil change charges for their vehicles be sent to the general fund?

18.  Why did the newspaper report that only our City Manager and director Smith were authorized $2,000 each to travel to Washing D.C. when the approval was for 8+?

19.  Why does director Smith need to go to the same type conference in D.C. when he just got back from one in Reno?

20.  Why did director Smith turn in expenses for his personal car to Dallas as part of the city paid expenses for he and his wife's trip to Japan?

21.  Did the Dallas trip involve personal and business expenses for his wife's business?

22.  Who really used that cell phone in Japan so much and billed the calls to the city?  Can we see those records?

23.  Who has what to hide and why?  Does the public not have a right to know?

After giving us this list, which he said was only a 'short list' of what he would really like to know, he again asked the question, "You ever get that uncomfortable feeling that you're being used?"  He then stated, "Despite what our City Manager appears to think, most of the people in Hot Springs didn't just fall off the proverbial turnip truck.  They probably already know most of the answers to those questions I just jotted down for you."  Anyhow, we though you may want to see the questions he had.  We're guessing he'll have more.

Letter to the Editor of the Sentinel Record                                                                Sent: January 13, 2007       Published: January 17, 2007

Accolades are due to the Sentinel Record for Saturday's insightful front-page article on the City Manager seeking restrictions on media access.  The first question that must now be asked is why?  Why would a director or a City Manager want to restrict what city employees can or cannot tell reporters especially when such action is in direct conflict with the city's written policy?  The second question that begs an answer is "what are they trying to hide?"  We at Hot-Springs-Metro.org are quite concerned in view of the fact that five of the seven board members continue to refuse to allow us to even speak at city board meetings.  We have long complained that "public" meetings are not "public" in Hot Springs.  Hopefully, now citizens will begin to actually see the light.  Not only do they not want the public to speak to them, they now want to restrict what their over-worked and underpaid city employees can tell the press.

Why would any public servant try and restrict our first amendment right to free speech?  Why would any representative of the public not wish to hear from the public?  Why would any city leader fear what their city employees may tell the media?  Some of the answers may become self-evident when one further ponders these mysteries.  First, which city director wants to be mayor so bad he can taste it?  Well, there are really at least two so lets refine the question.  Which city director went so far to improve his public image that he cut off his little pony-tail, started wearing a tie. and began displaying a miniature U.S. flag in front of himself at all city board meetings?  Second, which City Manager spends an inordinate amount of time kissing-up to his bosses while micromanaging the duties of his subordinates and being rude to the public?  And lastly, would the truth about selfish objectives, motives, or methods be embarrassing if the public found out?  Isn't it enlightening how many answers one can discover just by asking questions?

The facts seem to indicate that these two city leaders simply got caught and called onto the carpet by our local newspaper.  I'm going to go reread the Saturday article, it is quite entertaining to see how these two are blaming each other when it is so obvious that both of them thought they could get away with not only restricting the public's free speech rights but could also shut their employees up.

Commentary on Bush and Myers State of the City Report                                                                                                   January 13, 2007

The credit for most of the good things that happened in Hot Springs during 2006 were due to Mayor Bush and City Manager Myers.  We know this to be a fact because Mr. Bush and Mr. Myers both told us so at the Oakland Rotary meeting at the Velda Rose Hotel last Monday.  Bush said the city is actually doing "too well" and we may have to "slow it down."  Myers took credit, directly and indirectly, for much of the growth and development, improving neighborhoods, several recognitions and honors given to Hot Springs, sanitation improvements, downtown improvements including sidewalks, tourist facilities, landscaping, planning, a new director, future water needs, farmer's market, Oaklawn's expansion, new commercial center at the fairgrounds, and a myriad of highway projects both inside and outside of the city.  Something was beginning to get pretty deep before we had to left the Rotary meeting.

Okay, we've been giving both of these guys all the benefit of doubt we have been able to stomach for way too long.  The facts of these matters cry to be divulged so let's take them in order.  We are NOT doing "too well" and growing "too fast."  Numerous cities in Arkansas are growing much faster and are not having the sort of problems that may force us to "slow down."  The prime difference in Hot Springs and real growth cities like Conway, Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville, etc. is that they are actually PLANNING their growth.  Conversely, our city leaders not only fail to plan but even put up obstacles to planning by violating their own comprehensive plan and ignoring the public's voice.  Our group of "city leaders" install obstacles to orderly traffic flow such as Dysfunction Junction, personal four-way stops in front of their businesses, the downtown bottleneck, and closure of a perfectly good street that once went directly to our new multi-million dollar parking garage.  As to growth and development, ask any developer or new business that has tried to get through all the red-tape, roadblocks, handicaps, and reasons why they can never quite get in full compliance with some sort of recently dreamed-up regulation.  Ask any restaurant owner why they a forced to install $10,000 grease traps that must be purchased from a couple of "good ol' boy" vendors instead of letting them use a $400 trap that is approved by the State Health Department.  Ask some of our pizza joints why must now install grease traps when they don't even use grease.  The sad fact is that growth and development is happening in spite of our city leaders NOT because of them.

Mr. Myers did NOT go out and improve those neighborhoods and he likely had his secretary apply for some of those city honors.  Sort of reminiscent of his being honored by the International City Managers Association for his applying for and becoming credentialed.  The sanitation improvements apparently didn't impress the state of Arkansas who appear to have recently fined Hot Springs for allowing improperly treated sewage to run into Lake Hamilton after months of non-compliance warnings.  The downtown sidewalks from Prospect to Ouachita can now handle thousands of tourists but this improvement comes at a price to those of us who don't really like sitting in backed-up traffic in the bottleneck and Sheriffs, Police, Fire, and EMS that can't get through when lives may be at stake.  Thanks a lot guys for not listening to the hundreds of citizens who warned you that the bottleneck would become a dangerous problem.  Yep, yet another accident just this week.  Thanks for demonstrating that the public's safety and welfare do NOT come first. 

As to planning, it is nice to see that some of our leaders learned to spell the word.  This probably happened when they prepared the ad to hire a new planning director.  She apparently took her marching orders to heart because one of her first orders of business was to do a survey justifying huge increases in charges for city permits to builders and developers.  Many fees are proposed to increase up to 400% and many proposed will be higher than cities with real growth including much larger cities such as Little Rock.  It appears that Mr. Bush and Mr. Myers are already trying to slow our growth by increasing all city fees and taxes.  Yep, Myers is seriously talking about raising our city taxes including a possible ad valorum tax that was voted to be ended a few years ago.  He and the city attorney appear hard at work to find a way to bring this tax back without allowing the citizens to vote on it.  But back to planning.  How hard is planning for more water when we are the first city downstream from the country's most pristine lake and we sit directly on two other lakes?  The Farmer's Market and the bottlenecked Arts District are obviously, two of Mr. Myers pet projects.  While speaking of pet projects, let us not forget Oaklawn.  Wasn't that our mayor who was on the radio and TV for months adverting and trying to get us to vote for gambling in Hot Springs?  You don't have to have a position on gambling to know that advertising for a private business and this type activity is not in the job description for any mayor.

Okay, let's cut them a break on the highway projects.  We definitely have some highway projects.  In fact, it appears that we start three more before we ever finish one.  Why don't we just give up on Dysfunction Junction or whatever our citizens finally name it?  We would at least have four lanes if they just quit the constant construction.  Perhaps our directors and Myers just don't like 4-lane highways.  Remember that they closed two perfectly good lanes downtown.  One final traffic question.  How did Bush and Myers get the highway department to widen highway 70 west when it isn't even in the city?  Check out the January 9 Sentinel Record who apparently also saw these guys take credit for this out-of-town project.  It really appeared that these guys were serious.  Some of their antics would really be funny if it weren't so sad and didn't effect our once proud city so badly.

The 2006 Report Card for Our City Directors and City Manager                                                                                         January 3, 2007

Bush: D+      Weatherford: F      Smith: F      Daniel: D-      Jones: C-      Maruthur: A      Edwards: A      Myers: C-

The following is a listing of a few 2006 highlights attributable to our present Hot Springs city directors and City Manager.  No doubt there are other highlights which we will report as we find them.  The listed actions accounted greatly for the grades provided for each director.

Mayor Mike Bush:  Bush is smooth when conducting meetings but he appeared in various print, radio, and television ads urging Hot Springs citizens to vote to allow machine gambling at Oaklawn Park.  One needs not take sides as to whether or not gambling is a good thing or a bad thing.  We simply believe that it is not appropriate for our highest elected official to use his elected position to promote gambling or advertise for any individual private business.  Grade: D+

Director Carroll Weatherford:  Weatherford was consistently rude and abusive to his fellow directors and used expletives not appropriate even in private conversations while sitting in his director's chair in public meetings.  Weatherford took two trips to Japan and another to Reno at the taxpayer's expense. This director is rude, crude, and abusive and should not be representing our city anywhere, especially internationally.  The perception is that he blatantly uses his position so he can take free vacations.  Grade: F

Director Steve Smith:  Smith used his position to push board action requiring a 4-way stop at Quapaw and Orange Streets although it was completely unneeded and did not even slightly meet established city criteria for the installation of such signage (see Oct. 23 item below).  He then intimidated the police department into assigning police units to the intersection because people were not stopping at his new stop signs.  He requested that the board divert CDBG funds to pave a parking lot for his employer.  He and his employer now receive city funds monthly by renting facilities to the city.  This intimidating and condescending director is probably the most obvious of directors misusing their elected position of trust.  Grade: F

Director Tom Daniel:  It appears that Daniel receives funds from the city for goods and services he sells and votes to help friends and/or relatives while voting against competitors of his friends and/or relatives or those with different views.  Daniel does not abstain from voting even when it is pointed out that he has conflicts of interest.  One only needs to observe Daniel at meetings to conclude that his attitude and actions are deficient.  Grade D-

Director Elaine Jones:  Jones consistently voted with the above three directors in 2006.  Enough said.  Director Jones actually has the potential to become a good director if she would do her own research and not allow the above directors to influence her decisions.  Grade C-

Director Peggy Maruthur:  Maruthur is often the only dissenting vote, especially for matters that impact the safety and welfare of the public.  She quite often provides long dissertations on items that demonstrate her knowledge and research on the items.  Unfortunately, the above directors are checking their watches or rolling their eyes during this time instead of listening and attempting to find any factual information.  We are amazed at but applaud her fortitude for continuing to stand up against the above group when they are voting to help their friends instead of the public.  Grade: A

Director Bill Edwards:  Edwards has performed admirably during his tenure as a city director.  He even received the "Director of the Year" award for all directors for all cities in the state.  Instead of criticizing, being curt, and rude to Mr. Edwards; Weatherford, Smith, and Daniel would be well advised to observe him and learn.  Grade A

City Manager Kent Myers:  Myers abilities as a City Manager appear to be deficient yet he basically runs city board meetings as though he were the mayor or a director.  Myers shortcomings as a City Manager are well documented by the city survey which he had conducted.  Micromanagement of city departments, recent loss of key city personnel, low morale of city employees, continuous budget crises, desire for tax increases, rumor promotion, condescending attitude, allowing the city to be fined for non-compliance with state pollution requirements (Sentinel Record - Jan 3, 2007), and the list continues.  Myers earns a grade of F- for capabilities and performance.  However, his coy manipulation of our city directors earns him an A.  Average grade is C-

Please remember that the mayor plus directors Weatherford, Smith, Daniel, and Jones also ignored the overwhelming voice of the citizens and voted to install the downtown "bottleneck."  This selfish/self-serving action must not be forgotten.  Also remember the closing of Bath Street which once connected directly with the new multi-million dollar parking garage, dysfunction junction, and the total lack of traffic planning in our city.  Perhaps those grades should come down a bit.  For those who failed Public Administration 101, should we really 'hold them over' for another term?

Happy New Year                                                                                                                              January 1, 2007

Hot Springs residents will likely not remember 2006 as one of our greatest years.  2007 promises to continue with the threat of even more self-serving, non-representative city government.  Unfortunately, we cannot feel happy with the current state of the city.  However, each new year should continue to bring new hope.  Our problems can be tackled with a new and fresh vigor because to give up hope is the worst mistake we could make.  Until our leaders begin to represent their constituents and put the safety and welfare of our citizens first, our struggle must continue.  With our leaders refusing to provide an audience to us and turning deaf ears to the majority of our voices, some may be tempted to throw in the towel.  This, of course, is exactly what our selfish leaders would like.  We truly believe that they underestimate the resilience and determination of our citizens.  Let us resolve to work anew to change their misguided views of leadership, to demand that the public be properly represented, and the best interests of all our citizens be considered.  Otherwise, we must work toward replacing our present leaders with individuals who will provide prudent planning and spend our tax money wisely.  Hopefully, due to such efforts, we can say at the end of 2007 that it was a better year.  Happy New Year.

Update to Article Below                                                                                                                   December 19,2006

Just to keep our readers informed, we must report that our most recent formal request to speak to the Hot Springs City Board of Directors was once again rejected.  This request was listed as a "discussion item" only due to all of our previous "action items" being denied.  Their latest excuse for denying our request apparently relates to some previously unheard rule about being limited to one presentation per six month period.  Doesn't make sense does it?  It should be obvious to all that free speech is dead at city hall.

Hot Springs Metro Speaks to City Hall                                                                                              December 5, 2006

Believe it or not.  Our editor actually spoke last evening to the Hot Springs City Board of Directors during their regularly scheduled board meeting (click to see the video).  This is an amazing feat considering our string of requests to speak that were all flatly rejected.  Before you get too excited, we should tell you "the rest of the story."  The sad fact is that our editor was forced to sign up to speak on a posted agenda item.  As we have reported here in the past, the board's rules prohibit the public from speaking to them unless the topic has been submitted on their official "agenda request" form a minimum of one week prior to the scheduled meeting and approved by the board at their "agenda meeting" which is a precursor or rehearsal for their actual meeting.  Although we have followed this procedure several times in attempting to address the board regarding allowing the public to have a "public comment section" at all public meetings, we have always been censored or outright rejected.  The one exception to this procedure for obtaining the honor of speaking to the board is that the public can sign up immediately prior to board meetings to speak either for or in  opposition to the pre-approved agenda items.  This is the method that we employed which allowed our editor to speak.  He actually spoke in opposition to agenda item 28, the proposed annexation of "certain territory to the city (Bayou Point). Our editor pointed out that he was speaking in opposition to "any annexation by the city at this time" for several reasons.  An outline of these reasons are as follows.

1.    Based on the recent budget meeting, the conclusion reached is that the city is "financially strapped" and we are concerned that that city cannot financially afford to provide adequate additional services such as fire, police, and EMS services.

2.    The city needs to provide people who are proposed to be annexed with reasons to want to be a part of Hot Springs.  At present, the city is mostly providing disincentives.  For example:

    A,    Advertising tax on restaurants is so high that many residents are leaving town to eat.

    B.    City is reportedly proposed an increase in property taxes for 2008.

    C.    According to Sunday's local newspaper, costs of permit applications are being tripled and quadrupled.

    D.    Traffic is getting worse and the board is contributing to the problem rather than providing planning for it.

    E.    New citizens should be told that the public cannot speak at public meetings and their comments are censored or denied.

    F.    Board members are discouraging businesses.  Reference is made to how poorly the board treated the businessman who trying to reopen the historic old Baptist Hotel (Agenda item 25).

    G.    The board just took action (Agenda item 27) approving filing legal action against citizens if they didn't put up street numbers on their homes and businesses.  We pointed out that it may be cheaper and would certainly be better accepted if the city just furnished the signs rather than taking their citizens to court.

    H.    The board needs to take a hard look at the outrageous requirements being imposed on residents and businesses.  For example, the city is currently requiring businesses such as pizza establishments to install grease traps even though they don't use grease.

An audio of this presentation should be available on our website in the near future.  The bottom line is that we did, albeit it briefly, speak about the fact that the public is not allowed to speak at public meetings.  It is disappointing that we were forced to tie this to an item we didn't really want or need to address.  We sincerely hope that the board members will eventually see the folly of their actions and allow a "public comment section" at future board meetings.  Unfortunately, our current mayor and board still appear more concerned about how they look on their vast television network than they are about representing or even hearing from their citizens.

City may provide minimal pay raises for employees.                                                                       November 30, 2006

After setting through a long and boring city budget meeting Monday evening, we are prepared to report at least the seemingly more important parts to our readers.  The bottom line is the city board appeared to reach a consensus that includes the "job audit" plus a 1.25 percent COLA pay increase effective in January 2007 with no July 2007 adjustments.  The "job audit" appears to be the amount recommended by some recent study which indicates that some city employees who are paid from the general fund are making less that comparable jobs in the private sector (surprise, surprise).  Thus, the "job audit" amount is included to bring these employees up to the minimum that would be paid for similar jobs in the private sector.  It appears that the COLA (cost of living adjustment) increase recently announced for social security recipients and for retired civil service employees is 4.1 percent.  This amount is based on the increase in the CPI (consumer price index) for the 12 months period from the third quarter of 2005 to the third quarter of 2006 and can be verified at U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  It seems that our hard-working city employees are not even keeping up with the cost of inflation.

The saddest part of the meeting was realizing that the City Manager was not recommending any pay raise for our police and fire departments.  He had a lady named Doritha (sp?) explain that these employees got "step" increases and other forms of increases plus certain allowances.  Apparently, in his mind, this justified giving no COLA to the police and fire department personnel.  Fire chief Davis took issue with the City Manager's justification and with some of the city directors who may otherwise have gone along with the City Manager.  Mr. Davis pointed out that very few "step" increases will be made because of the veteran force.  The acting police chief also pointed out that uniform allowances provided by the city were deficient when compared to actual costs and that taking units home helped police officers by having their equipment and showing a neighborhood presence.  Employees of our police and fire departments would have been proud of both chiefs.

Another even sadder and really low, low, low point of the budget meeting was when director Weatherford called the Human Resource lady's (Minnie) numbers "BS."  The real problem is that he did not use the abbreviation and this was, apparently, a public meeting.  You know that if it had not been, our editor would certainly have been thrown out.  Kudos to Miss Minnie for taking Weatherford to task for his totally inappropriate comments.  She looked directly at Weatherford and emphatically said, "Excuse Me?"  She actually said this three times and never took her eyes off of Weatherford although he was trying hard to ignore her and move on to another subject.

Please note that the "Enterprise" employees such as water, sewer, airport, etc. which are not funded by the general fund will also receive the meager COLA salary increase, but only because their department heads pledged to "find the money" in their respective budgets to cover it.  We learned that the City of Hot Springs has 600 employees and that 116 of them are paid from the general fund.  We also learned that the increases are proposed to be paid for by using a lease-purchase plan for new vehicles instead of purchasing them for cash which will ultimately cost the city more money.  Additional funding will be provided by reducing out of state travel for city employees and, just perhaps, even some board travel will be reduced.  Note that board members were grinning and saying that this was to only be a "temporary" situation and this issue would "come back later."  In other words, the board obviously plans to restore their own travel funds but made no such statements for restoring city employee's travel funds.  Apparently, we should know that it is more important to use our tax money to send directors on vacations to Japan, Reno, and Washington D.C. than to send our city employees to training sessions in Little Rock.  This has to be true because director Weatherford told Jean Edwards that she needed to trim her final $2,000 for "in-state" travel.  This was apparently because he was losing some of his "out-of-state" travel funds and "everyone has to contribute."  In case any of our readers think we have not reported any of the above accurately, give us a call.  We recorded the meeting.

One final slightly biased commentary.  Our City Manager's six-figure salary will increase approximately $1500 while most city employees salaries increase about $375.  What has he done to deserve that disproportionate amount?  Everyone we know think almost all of our city employees deserve much more than they are going to get.  How about expanding the "job audit" study and then adjusting your salary, Mr. Myers, down to what other Arkansas City Managers for cities our size earn?  Better yet, make it commensurate with what you personally do to benefit our community.

Update to Commentary Below

Please read the November 27 item below first and this commentary will be easier to understand

City denies our request to speak yet again                                                                                       November 29, 2006

Well, we attended another Hot Springs city board agenda (and rehearsal) meeting yesterday afternoon and were once again denied an opportunity to be placed on the agenda for the real city board meeting to be held Monday evening December 4 at 7 pm.  Mr. Myer's letter to the editor on November 6 sort of rings hollow when the board and, quite specifically, the mayor flatly denies our request to even speak to the board during a real board meeting.  Note the proposed agenda as provided to the board for their agenda meeting November 28 and especially, item 24 (under New Business).  Don't be confused because the agenda is dated December 4, 2006 - this is when the actual board meeting will be held.  The agenda meetings are just sort of a rehearsal and the board's opportunity to reject any items that may make them look bad.  In fact, this should make it obvious that this is exactly what they did in spite of the City Manager trying to tell us that anyone can speak to the city board.  This should prove that the public CANNOT speak to the Hot Springs City Board even after going through all the red tape they use to try and dissuade the public from speaking.  We requested the item as an "action item" and were denied.  We have already resubmitted the item as a "non-action item."  Come to the next agenda item and see your board once again deny our request to speak even though our request is to just address the board with no action required.  In case you can't be at the agenda meeting, we will again report the results on this site.

City Manager Attempts to Change Correct Perception by Misleading the Public                               November 27, 2006

To fully understand the following commentary, one first needs to read the three letters in green following, especially the second one which is a "letter to the editor" from our City Manager. Or click here for 1st  2nd  3rd  letters.

Hot Springs City Manager, Kent Myers, reversed what he calls his "practice" by responding to a letter written by our editor which Myers claims misleads the public "about an important aspect of your city government" and he feels "a certain responsibility to set the record straight."  The true fact of the matter is that we were once again informing the public that the Hot Springs City Board has no public comment section where the public can comment on any issue they feel should be brought to the attention of the board.  We simply think this is wrong and it is hypocritical to refer to any meeting as a 'public' meeting when the 'public' is not allowed to speak on any subject they wish to speak on.  As it now stands, the public can only speak on items that have been submitted by city board members, the City Manager, or items submitted on a specific form by the public a minimum of one week prior to the board meeting and then approved at an "agenda meeting" usually held at 5pm on the Tuesday before the actual board meeting.  The requesting 'public' party may or may not be allowed to speak at the agenda meeting to explain why the issue should be heard at the real board meeting on the following Monday.  It appears that the great majority of the public does not know about these "agenda meetings."  In reality, these meetings appear to be designed solely to make board members 'look good' to their television audiences by allowing them an opportunity to "not be surprised" by any item and, in fact, research and rehearse their positions prior to televised board meetings.  It is unfortunate that our public servants think of themselves as some sort of television stars rather than representatives of the people who they were elected to represent.  Note that Mr. Myers refers to anyone not living within the Hot Springs city limits as "a county resident."  On a personal note, it is a bit difficult for a Hot Springs native to be called an "outsider" by a transplanted Texan.  This reference is also quite common among city board members as though "county residents" are second class citizens and shouldn't have an interest in the affairs of the city.

Mr. Myers states that "several months ago" our editor "was provided a full opportunity to state his position at a board agenda meeting."  Myers is badly misleading the public when he resorts to false statements.  The fact is, our editor was NOT even allowed to speak at the agenda meeting.  In fact, Mr. Weatherford was the 'acting mayor' during the July 5, 2006 meeting and when our editor stood and asked, "May I speak because our request is being misconstrued?" he was told by Weatherford in a loud emphatic voice, "NO. You cannot speak here or on Monday night." [see July 6, 2006 news item below]  It seems that agenda meetings are designed to exclude the public since they are apparently not recorded either as part of an official record or by any video or audio equipment.  However, unless our city has changed the law, we members of the 'public' may still record any 'public' meeting.  Mr. Myers would be well advised to remember this before using false statements (politically correct term) in the future.  Myers is correct that on October 31, we were allowed to be heard by Mayor Bush at another infamous 'agenda meeting'.  He fails to point out that the item was resubmitted as an "action item" because it was incorrectly not treated as an "action item" at the July meeting.  An action item requires a vote by all board members and the board took no vote as requested.  Our primary intention was to have a public comment section added to the agenda for all public city meetings and our secondary intention was to have on the record, by their votes, which board members were opposed to allowing the public to comment at public meetings.  Although we did not get the votes, negative comments by directors Daniel, Weatherford, Smith, and Jones made it obvious who was opposed to allowing free speech at public meetings.  Please note that although we were allowed to speak at the agenda meeting, our request was denied and we were not allowed to speak at the actual board meeting on November 6, 2006.

When Myers touts their being "fortunate to have local residents attend each and every board meeting to offer their comments," he fails to emphasize that such comments must be limited to items on their pre-approved agenda and you must sign their specially designed "sign-up sheet" prior to the meeting to speak either "for or against" the approved items.  Such items are often esoteric and many people who would like to speak don't know whether to sign as pro or con which further reduces participation by the public.  The "second opportunity" to speak Myers touts fails to inform the public of the required red tape of going to city hall to obtain a form, filling it out, submitting it to the proper agent, and then waiting to see if it is approved at their agenda meeting.  Shouldn't he tell us that only those items the board members want to see on the agenda actually get to be on the agenda?  As an example, our request to speak to the board at the November 6, 2006 meeting was denied simply because Daniel, Weatherford, Smith, and Jones didn't want us speaking during their television time.  What kind of warped priorities puts the image of our vain representatives concerned about looking bad on television to their vast audience ahead of the citizen's right to speak at public meetings?  We certainly hope that citizens will accept Mr. Myers' invitation to attend one of their censored and rehearsed board meetings.  Please do attend and ask to be heard.  After your own experience, decide for yourself if Hot Springs officials should be allowed even use the word 'public' in their public meetings.

We hope that Mr. Myers and the present city board changes their methods of operating our city and planning for our future.  just perhaps, they can provide those pesky "county residents" with reasons to actually move into the city.  Most of us still try hard to envision a city that attracts nice new subdivisions, has a low crime rate, offers activities for our families, has taxes we can afford, has well-planned orderly traffic flow and streets our police, sheriffs deputies, firemen, EMS and all emergency responders can actually get through.  In the interim, we do have choices.  We can either wait for Mr. Myers and our present board to move in this direction or we can replace them with unselfish people who will actually represent the 'public'. 

Please click here to review the November 5 "Letter to the Editor" of our local newspaper from our editor

Hey, here is the November 15 response to our letter from our illustrious City Manager

And finally, here is our November 17 response to our City Manager's "Letter to the Editor" This was actually published on Friday, November 24, 2006.

Newsflash!!  Our first political ad (shown below) was submitted in two statewide contests.  We'll keep you posted as to how it does.

City Director Uses Position for Personal Gain                                                                                October 23, 2006

E-mails from the public have prompted us to investigate City Director Steve Smith further.  We amazed to discover the blatant misuse of authority demonstrated by Director Smith.  We would, however, stop short of stating that we were surprised given his obvious previous disregard for public safety including his strong position resulting in the infamous "Bottleneck."  Mr. Smith has now demonstrated that his primary goal as a City Director is apparently to not only pander to selfish interests but to serve his own personal selfish interests.  His latest escapade was to install himself a four-way stop complete with a blinking red light for the intersection where he works at Quapaw and Orange Street.  He also had signs installed at each end of Quapaw to keep trucks off only the street where he lives at 700 Quapaw.  This was easy to accomplish since his allies on the board seem to have a history of voting together for whatever special interests any of them may be involved in.  We have obtained a copy of the 'so-called' traffic study on which the new four-way stop was supposedly justified.  The really obvious bottom-line is that it was not justified at all.  Mr. Smith simply used his position to get his way.  A copy of the report is available on the "Archive" page listed under "Traffic Studies."  Even a cursory examination of this report indicates that there hundreds of intersections in Hot Springs that deserve four-way stop control more than Mr. Smith's personal intersection.  Even if there is a bit more traffic on Quapaw, Mr. Smith helped to cause it because several citizens now use this residential street to avoid the "bottleneck" he helped create.  Note on the report that there were several hours when zero (0) automobiles went through the intersection.  Also note that only Quapaw was monitored, not Orange Street, yet even the report criteria clearly states that 300 vehicles entering from side streets are necessary to justify a four-way stop.  With very minor exception, this many vehicles don't even use Quapaw, much less the entering street of Orange.  We understand that Mr. Smith says his actions make it safer for the clients of his facility.  Visit the intersection and see if you can detect any of his clients crossing at the intersection.  We found none on numerous visits.  Also check out the speed hump a bit over one-hundred feet (100') west of Quapaw just before the intersection with Orange Street.  This should rule out speeding even if some of Mr. Smith's clients do occasionally cross there.

To further demonstrate how "powerful" and "important" Mr. Smith considers his position as director is, we have visited the intersection on numerous occasions and can report that more often than not, he now has a police unit tied up watching his 'personal' intersection.  It seems that he continues to complain to the police that people are not stopping.  "Give those violators a ticket."  We know that Mr. Smith reads this website.  Well, Mr. Smith, be advised that we consider this to be yet another example of your misusing and abusing your office.  We feel strongly that the public deserves to know what you are doing and we plan to report such future abuse by you or any other elected public servant that serves themselves rather than the public.  In your case, you seem to serve at the expense of the safety and welfare of the public.  Mr. Smith, if you do have some flimsy excuse for your most recent actions, we invite you to e-mail us.  We would be happy to hear it and we will publish your comments here.

City Directors Vacation at Taxpayer's Expense                                                                                   August 9, 2006

Last evening's Hot Springs city board meeting was all too typical.  The wishes of the public were ignored and the directors did what they wanted without being very concerned or very courteous. Although Director Maruthur cautioned that 2007 projected budget shortfalls should cause concern about board members taking expensive trips, the board voted to send themselves to Japan and Reno.  In fact, one board member said that such trips is where she started learning what she needed to know about how to be a good board member.  Perhaps therein lies the answer as to what is wrong with our present board.  They go to Las Vegas, Japan, and other far away places to learn how to run Hot Springs instead of staying at home and listening to the people who actually live here.  Perhaps they really think that government is better learned by listening to the Japanese or by poking money into slot machines or risking it on black-jack tables.  We were happy to see that our mayor has regained his health but disappointed to hear his analysis of the trips.  He stated that he agreed with Maruthur for trips next year but since we have plenty of money this year, we should go ahead and spend it.  That is brilliant commentary.  If we, the public, know that next year will be a lean year, we apparently should go spend whatever money we have this year.  Please, fellow citizens, just go watch what our city board is doing.  We presently have a couple of "voices of reason" on the board but we also have a larger group that caters to the unbridled greed of a small minority.  Judge for yourself if this group spends your hard-earned tax dollars wisely, has any concern for our safety or welfare, and whether or not they represent the best interests of our citizens.

Note: Directors voting to send themselves to Reno were Daniel, Smith, Weatherford, and Jones.

CBID 3 trying to win some allies in CBID 2                                                                                            July 27, 2006

In an effort to keep our readers informed as to what is going on downtown, we must tell you that a joint meeting of CBID 3 (the bottleneck kids) and CBID 2 has been called for this afternoon at 5 PM in the city council chambers.  CBID 3 is comprised mainly of the art gallery people and several folks are now pressing CBID 2 to become primarily an antique area complete with a scheduled "antique walk" similar to the CBID 3 "gallery walk."  On the surface, the idea seems innocent enough and may even help to fill some of the empty buildings near the fountain.  Under the surface, we can't help but wonder if these folks are just trying to pacify the good people in CBID 2.  You will recall that a survey by the Downtown Merchants Association indicated that most of them would prefer to remove the bump-outs and the bottleneck.  We'll keep an eye out and let you know how their strategy progresses.

Free Speech Takes Another Hard Hit                                                                                                    July 11, 2006

As you may know, we formally requested an action item be placed on the Hot Springs city board meeting agenda for their July 10, 2006 meeting.  The item requested the city board place a "public comment" section on the agenda for all future public meetings held by the city.  If you had a chance to see the city board meeting that evening you were treated to another well scripted performance which was obviously planned and perhaps even rehearsed by our City Manager and city attorney.  You may not ever have an opportunity to watch the rerun performances because the word is out that due to electrical or other technical problems, it cannot be re-aired as usual.  We know that it must be technical because it surely couldn't be that our illustrious leaders don't want to be seen on TV telling the public that they have no right to speak at public meetings.  In case you're not satisfied with their not airing reruns of the meetings, drop us an e-mail and we will make sure you see our taped version.   In a nutshell, the City Manager and city attorney became quite defensive by being very offensive, denied knowledge that the public has ever not been allowed to speak, and provided some of the most lame excuses you have ever heard for not allowing the public to speak at public meetings.  The acting mayor skipped directly to the next agenda item and asked for no motion, vote, or action although our request was definitely for an action item.

FYI: During a workshop at the 71st Arkansas Municipal League (AML) Convention held in Hot Springs (July 2005), Ms. Jeannette Denham, an AML staff attorney, referenced limits to First Amendment rights for speaking at city meetings.  She pointed out that city boards can set the times on how long people can speak, can require that they sign up ahead of the meeting and list the topic they will discuss.  Note that these identical recommendations were made to our city board plus placing the public comment session at the end of the meeting.  Does it sound like this board wants to hear from the public they supposedly represent?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Censorship and secrecy silence, starve, and kill. The right to speak and the right to know are not luxuries: they underpin all human rights and are central to achieving human development.    — Lord David Puttnam

Click on any of the following items for more information if interested in exploring more about the public's right to speak at public meetings.  AML  VSOS  Public Meetings in Ark  FAC  Supreme Court  Brown Act  Still want more?  Read "First Amendment Felon" by Robert Sherrill.

Free Speech is Dead at City Hall                                                                                                            July 6, 2006

As you may already know, several citizens have been prevented from speaking at recent City Board meetings.  You may have seen our complaints about this in the local newspaper.  Because of this situation, we officially filed for an agenda item asking the city board to consider having a "Public Comment" section at all city board meetings.  This request was considered yesterday afternoon (July 5) during the "Agenda" meeting of the City Manager and city board.  The City Manager and city attorney presented the item as a very negative thing that would "take up a lot of time" and informed the 3 board members present (Weatherford, Maruthur, Edwards) that the city previously allowed the public to speak at the beginning of meetings but stopped this practice because there were so "many people who wanted to be on TV" and this took up too much time.  When our representative asked, "May I speak because our request is being misconstrued?" he was firmly told by Weatherford, "No, you cannot speak here or on Monday night."  What our representative wanted to inform the group of was that we did not request the public comment session be at the beginning of meetings and that such sessions could be easily controlled by requiring speakers to sign up with their names and subject before the meeting.  Also, such sessions could be limited to say, a total of 15 minutes with each speaker being held to 3 minutes or so. 

Commentary:  It has become increasingly evident that most of our city board members do not want the public to hear what we have to say.  What we would like to say is that the any member of the public has a legal right to speak at any public meeting.  How can elected officials not be willing to listen to the public they are supposed to represent?  How can a public meeting be called "public" when the public is not allowed to speak?  The fact is obvious from their constant comments about "TV" that some of these folks think they are TV stars instead of public servants.  They apparently don't want to be upstaged or made to look bad by allowing anyone with opposing views to their self-serving agendas to share any part of their personal television time.  We need to consider replacing our TV stars with some public representatives.  We may even need to help buy them one-way tickets to Hollywood.

Unfortunately, the agenda meeting of July 5 was obviously another scripted meeting starring the City Manager, city attorney, and our new "vice" mayor.  These "stars" quipped that other cities and other boards did not have public comment sections, they were not needed, they could not be controlled, etc, etc, etc.  Thankfully only one of the "bottleneck" directors showed up.  Otherwise, the request for a public comment section would not have even been on the agenda for consideration at Monday's city board meeting.  You may want to come by city hall at 7 PM on Monday, July 10.  You can either come to voice your opinion or just come to star on TV.  If you can't come, just tune in at that time to see all the celebrities perform.  Star-studded reruns will air for several days following.  We think this important broadcast may be blocked out in most of the world, nation, state, and even major portions of Garland County.  That's probably okay because the DVD should be in stores soon.

Joke of the Day  [Click Here}                                                                                                                June 26, 2006

Critique of Monday (6-19-06) Performance                                                                                          June 20, 2006

Wow!!  What else can we say?  The city board performance was fantastic.  It was far better than anyone had anticipated.  It is true that the preview described in the following article accurately predicted the outcome because the 3 board members who had already made up their minds and were not going to be bothered by the facts did, indeed, vote to keep the bottleneck.  Only Directors Maruthur and Edwards voted 'nay' demonstrating concern about the safety of the public. 

Except for mixing acts 1 and 2 together, the predicted scripting was precisely correct.  The entertainment value was greatly enhanced because choreography and clown buttons were added.  Each time a member of the selfish interest group approached the lectern, everybody with a clown button rose to their feet and stood until their speaker was finished then clapped in unison and sat down together.  The performance was reminiscent of synchronized swimming except for the nose-clips and music.  It was great.  The city was told that the building owners and business owners were unanimous is their support to keep their bottleneck.  What the heck, it wouldn't be a play without a dose of fiction.  Acts 1 and 2 exceeded expectations so much that they almost overshadowed act 3.  Had it not been for board members rolling their eyes and the folks with clown buttons booing and hissing while Director Maruthur recited a well composed summation of facts, act 3 would have failed miserably. 

All things considered, the performance was extremely successful in several ways.  As a board meeting, it was a waste of our time because the board members already had scripted the outcome but having a public meeting was really never the intent.  The success from our perspective is that we now have a recorded performance clearly demonstrating points we have been working hard to prove.  We also now know how well funded, how vocal, how coordinated, and how selfish the special interest group is plus we know their tactics.  The most important revelation is knowing without a shadow of a doubt which board members cater to this small minority of our citizens instead of the public safety and welfare.  This was a classic.  Tape yourself a copy quick.  The reruns are already showing on city channel 15. . 

Invitation to the Fantastic 3-Act Play Monday Evening                                                                            June 16, 2006

The Day Has Come and the Public Has Lost.  Polls of the city board members indicate that 3 board members already have decided to vote to keep parking in the bottleneck (Central Ave from Market to Prospect).  What?  You ask how this can be true?  It is an unfortunate circumstance when our board members get together and decide issues without having an open mind to what the public may say at their next public meeting.  Unfortunately, some members of the "public" have already been denied free speech rights at what are jokingly referred to as "public meetings."  Sadly, the public's opinion appears to matter very little to our present city board members.  We must accept that fact for now but we must also use this to intensify our efforts to find board members who will actually listen to the public and do what is in the best interests of all of our citizens, not just a handful of selfish property owners who successfully use threats and intimidation to satisfy  self-serving special interests.  In this case, free parking for themselves on city property at their doorsteps with absolutely no consideration of public safety and the other citizens who are trying to use what would otherwise be a 4-lane "public roadway." 

Please tune in Monday evening at 7PM and watch this entertaining event on cable channel 15 or, better yet, come to city hall and watch in person.  The scripts have been written and neither the public or the true facts will sway any votes.  You will be treated to a three-act play.  Act one will provide some uncomfortable facts and concerns about our bottleneck which will be ignored.  Act 2 will consist of a parade of the selfish property owners that want free parking with no concern for emergency response vehicles or the public trying to get through their bottleneck. Act 3 promises to be the highlight of the evening because it will showcase your city board members explaining why they think jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the public is a good thing for them to do.  This third act will be especially entertaining because the vast majority of our citizens are a bit smarter than many of our present board give them credit for.  This means that those intelligent citizens will be talking about the performance for days saying things like, "how incredible."  "Who could have written such an unbelievable script?"  We will have our own critics review of the entire performance on this website as soon as possible following the Monday meeting. 

Make yourself a tape of the performance and then stay tuned for the sequel.  With your help and support, this will involve some unbelievable outside agencies, a mixture of real experts, and the normally staid November election.  Early inside glimpses indicate that the sequel should prove to be even more interesting and educational than Monday evening's promising performance.

Update to June 10, 2006 News Story Below                                                                                            June 14, 2006

We were informed by an e-mail today from the City Manager that he did not do the internet search which we stated was the appearance of happenings in our June 10 story.  It now appears from data he provided that the search was actually performed by Rico Harris with French Harris Architects, PA.  French Harris is located in the bottleneck and both principles are among the most vocal members of the special interest group.  This is being reported because we believe in fairness and being accurate.  However, the point remains that the circulation of the information by our City Manager was, at best, inappropriate.  No, we have not received an apology for his improper distribution of the information to his board.

Special Interest Group Member Speaks to the Public                                                                               June 12, 2006

They have finally 'come out of the closer' and shown their true colors.  Note the "Letter to the Editor" in Sunday's local newspaper.  A Mr. Richard Gipe from Los Angeles wrote in telling us that we have created a "tempest in a teapot."  Mr. Gipe basically says we should not be complaining because our traffic should be expected to get worse and he tells us how much better it is than Los Angeles.  Give us a break, Mr. Gipe.  Traffic anywhere is better than LA and having driven there doesn't give you a license to tell us some congestion is okay.  Since Mr. Gipe insulted our intelligence, we had to respond.  Our response can be see by clicking here.

City Manager Attempts to Defame Our Editor                                                                                            June 10, 2006

It was confirmed by multiple sources that the City Manager has circulated information in an apparent attempt to discredit our Hot-Spring-Metro.org editor.  It appears that the City Manager either personally did an internet search or had a member of his staff perform the search to see what 'dirt' could be dug up on our editor. Our own research indicates that a wealth of information involving our editor comes up when doing a Google search.  For what appears to be obvious reasons, the City Manager picked out only one that, when shown alone, could indicate that our editor has a history of complaining. If all of the search information is shown in its entirety, one could only conclude that our editor has a history of exposing corruption, noting improper spending of tax monies, and insisting that government be operated in an open, transparent manner. Do you suppose these type activities somehow threaten him?

We assisted our editor in putting together a packet of the complete information which was subsequently sent to all city board members and the city attorney so that they could judge for themselves based on the complete facts rather than the small snippet which was shown to them.  Our editor informed those individuals that we were awaiting an apology from the City Manager. We think that may be a very long wait. We will keep you informed.

Disjointed and Confusing City Board Meeting                                                                                           June 6, 2006

If you have an opportunity, tune in to city channel 15 on Resort Cable and check out one of the most disjointed and unprofessional city meetings you will ever see.  At best, you have to wonder who makes up the agendas and why they are so confusing.  Last evening's fiasco showcased short words and sarcasm between various board members.  The mayor even rudely chastised one board member by stating, "if you would come to the agenda meetings, you would know what was going on."  Sadly, the public may also have to go to those so we can know what is supposed to happen.

Our interpretation of why the city board agenda was so confusing is that it was designed to keep the public from knowing what was going on until it was too late for public input.  Unfortunately and in actuality, this ploy sort of back-fired because it mostly just confused those who would try to confuse us.  The first item on the consent agenda section was titled "Public Safety Committee Report (May 24, 2006)."  Apparently, at least one of our readers (see "Discussions") was also confused.  When we tried to get an answer for her, we discovered that there is no such committee.  At least, that is what one would think after searching the city's website.  The heading, "Boards and Committees" makes no reference to any such committee.  Only by going to City Hall did we finally discover that there was such a committee.  It was quite obvious that the public was not going to be informed as to what the committee recommended until after the board had acted on it.  This was likely a violation of the "open meetings act" and we will definitely look into it.  We did sign up to speak on this item but were ignored (see following item).  A few readers recommended that we don't make this group look bad until election time,  We don't have to try or wait.  Tune in to their board meeting and make up your own mind as to how they look. 

Deja Vu One More Time                                                                                                                            June 6, 2006

Well, we signed up one more time and were denied the opportunity to speak one more time.  We actually signed up to speak on behalf of the public safety report even though we had no clue was the report said.  One other person signed up on the same form to speak against the report and was allowed, even asked, to speak.  Hand waving with the mayor looking directly at us proved to be fruitless.  We are however, assured once again that we will be allowed to speak during the June 19, 2006 meeting.  Perhaps you should come and voice your opinion as well.

Denied Again                                                                                                                                           May 31, 2006   

We just discovered today that we have once again been denied an opportunity to speak at the June 5, 2006 City Board meeting.  It sounds like deja vu all over again.  Note the May 2 entry below and you will see that this is not the first time this has happened.  It is obvious that the handful of special interests who demand free parking at their doorsteps have exercised their muscle with our city directors again perhaps so that they will have more time to put together viable reasons to leave parking on Central and eventually putting their silly roundabout in at Central, Market, and Ouachita.  During the 'Agenda' meeting last evening, there was also some discussion about the fact that two traffic accidents happened in the "bottleneck" yesterday.  The local newspaper even pictured one of them on the front page today (May 31).  This is the kind of publicity they don't need because their trying to sell the bottleneck as enhancing safety is just not working very well.  Not to worry, we were told today directly by the City Manager and the mayor that we will be on the agenda on June 19, 2006. Keep your finger crossed.  We've been lied to before and likely will be again.  We may as well put those folks on notice that our second goal, once the bottleneck is removed, could well be a request for a "Public Comment" section in future city board meetings.  We have often wondered how they have continued this long without allowing public input at public meetings.

First Meeting Wednesday                                                                                                                        May 25, 2006

Okay, so now we are officially Hot Springs Metro, Inc. and we must have an organizational meeting.  The preliminary meeting will be on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 2 PM at the Colonial Pancake and Waffle House - 111 Central Avenue.  We anticipate this to only be an informal meeting but we need to get everyone's vision and input so that we can prepare for a real organization meeting where we elect officers, adopt a mission statement, develop some initial plans and goals, etc.  If you are interested in being a charter member, please join us then.

We're on the June 5 Agenda, Maybe                                                                                                       May 19, 2006

We have once again submitted an official request to be on the agenda for the City Board meeting at 7 PM on June 5, 2006.  As you know, our previous request for the May 1, 2006 meeting was rejected.  Two board members have asked us to defer until after Memorial Day.  At least one city director says he believes that particular weekend will prove that the bottleneck has failed its test.  Obviously, we think the test was failed a long time ago but perhaps, this will provide whatever justification that director needs to vote to finally end the trial period and eliminate the bottleneck.  One of our primary concerns is that the 90 day trial has now exceeded 6 months.  Whatever the present situation, we will be at city hall on June 5 to voice our concerns.  We hope you will join us.

They are Trying to Shut us Down                                                                                                               May 9,2006

We knew it was coming.  It was just a matter of time.  Yep, we were provided notification that we must cease using the name "Hot Springs Metro" since it was already being used.  Somebody even put up the money a couple of weeks ago to register a trademark that had "Hot Springs Metro" on it.  Our intentions were pure and simple.  We were only trying to use a name that was somewhat descriptive of who we are.  We are citizens from all over the Hot Springs Metropolitan area who should have a voice in what happens in not only Hot Springs but also in the surrounding area since we are now officially a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).  Unfortunately, there was not a lot of fanfare when we achieved this status.  Could it be that the city didn't want to advertise the fact that the surrounding area was now larger than the city?  We are only the fifth such area to be located wholly within the state of Arkansas and are actually the smallest in geographic area because we cover only Garland County.  But back to the original point.  The primary fact is that they weren't successful in shutting us down.  In fact, since we were forced into it, we now own the name "Hot Springs Metro."  If you check, we are now officially "Hot Springs Metro, Inc." which means that only we have a right to use the name "Hot Springs Metro" in any context (click here for charter).  It is really rather sad that we must incorporate such names just to be able to use them.  Some of our present-day laws are a bit weird.  What if someone incorporates the name "Hot Springs?"  Do you suppose that everyone else would have to cease using it, including the city? 

Right to Free Speech Doesn't Exist at City Board Meetings                                                                           May 2, 2006

As you already knew from the article following, we were told  by Tom Daniel that we would not be allowed to speak at the May 1, 2006 city board meeting. On May 1st we were also told by Mike Bush that we could not speak on any subject that was not on the agenda and since our agenda item request had been denied by Tom Daniel and Steve Smith this meant we were not allowed to speak.  Indeed, we sat through the entire meeting and were not recognized.  Have you ever wondered why, unlike most cities, our city board meetings have no "public comment" section or why our city would not want people bringing their concerns to any public forum?  Why do they these things are called "public" meetings for Pete's sake?  Could it be they have something to hide or could it be that they would go to any extreme to make certain that they are not criticized or made to look bad to their vast television audience?  Let us know if you think of other reasons why any member of the public would be denied the right to speak freely at any public meeting.

Request to be on May 1 Agenda Rejected                                                                                                 April 26, 2006

Our requested opportunity to be heard by the Hot Springs City Board has been rejected.  Even though we had already agreed to wait until May 1, 2006 to address the City Board and even though our request was timely submitted on the city's official form prior the last City Board meeting, our request was rejected Tuesday evening at the recommendation of Tom Daniel, who is apparently, the Assistant Mayor.  Board member Steve Smith concurred which, we are told, constitutes a "consensus" for rejecting our request.  As soon as we learned of this action, we informed both the Deputy City Manager and Mr. Daniel that these actions were "not acceptable." 

Upon contacting Mr. Daniel, he stated that they needed to see the effect of the actions they approved at their April 3rd meeting. The item they approved was "Resolution number R-06-127 Approving Various Traffic and Parking Related Issues Within CBID III on a Temporary Basis."  What this resolution effectively does is to make Ouachita and Market streets one-way and add parking around the Confederate Memorial.  See item 21 on pages 16 through 19 at http://www.ci.hot-springs.ar.us/pdfs/agendas/2006/minutes/min4-3-06.pdf for some interesting reading.  We informed Mr. Daniel that we wished to speak to those items as well as to ending the trial period for temporary parking on Central which officially expired on February 15, 2006.  We explained that we thought their actions were only 'making a bad situation worse' and there was no justification for spending our hard-earned tax money on yet another bad project.  His response was that it would cost the city nothing because the "State Highway Department" was paying for it.  We informed Mr. Daniel that this was still using our tax money.

It now appears that our only recourse for getting on the May 1, 2006 agenda is by two-thirds vote of the City Board during the May 1 meeting.  We will appeal to Mayor Bush to entertain such a motion at that meeting and will inform everyone through e-mails and this website of his response.  Mayor Bush, Director Jones, and Director Weatherford are presently visiting Hot Springs' sister city of Hanamaki, Japan but are expected back by the weekend.

NOTE: An editorial titled, "City Board Sidesteps Citizen's Appearance" addressing the above items plus related concerns appears in Sunday's (4/30) Sentinel Record.

UPDATE: We promised to let you know the results of our talk with the mayor, assuming we got to talk to him. Well, we did and it appears that we will NOT be provided with an opportunity to speak tonight.  Even though several folks will be there talking about everything from sewer lines to rezoning, it is apparent that the board doesn't want to hear about parking bottlenecks or parking decks that are almost impossible to get to.

Speaking Engagements                                                                                                                            April 20, 2006

Just to keep you updated . . .   We had a request to appear on KZNG Radio 1340 AM and did a 30 minute visit on their morning program called, "News and Chat with Dick and Matt."  Several very positive calls came in immediately following the program.  We also addressed a Lions club meeting and were thrilled when one-hundred percent of those attending signed our petition and several have agreed to join in our effort.  Thanks for the invitations.  We have a couple more speaking engagements already scheduled.  If you need a speaker at your civic club or event, don't hesitate to call us.  The primary phone number is (501) 849-4777 or you can call locally at 617-4777.

City Manager Says We Will Have a "Roundabout"                                                                                    April 18, 2006

The City Manager told a radio audience today that Hot Springs may bring back the original "Roundabout" in the future but for now we will effectively have a roundabout at Central, Ouachita, and Market.  Turn your speakers on and click on Roundabout to hear his comments.

Last changed: 11/29/11