(Guest post by Jay Greene)

I intend to vote for the school millage increase in Fayetteville on September 21.  I know that my supporting a millage increase seems as likely as pigs flying, but both can happen — I support local taxes that are well-spent.  I also believe those Razorbacks will soar this year.

I opposed the previous millage effort, but I did so because it seemed extravagant and wasteful.  Much of the current high school is adequate and there was no need to demolish it entirely and replace it with a new Taj Mahal.  Besides, there is no evidence that fancy buildings improve education. Buildings don’t teach kids, people do.

But the voters soundly rejected the previous millage by almost 2 to 1 and the school board got the message.  They scaled back their plans, found clever ways to economize by keeping much of the current structure, and they took full advantage of federally subsidized loans.

Now the school board is asking for a more modest millage increase to take even more advantage of those federal loan plans and save $29 million in interest.  Voting for this millage is a no-brainer.  The only effect of rejecting it would be that we would pay$29 million more in interest payments on the same school construction loans we are going to take out anyway.  We’ll have to pay that $29 million someday with a larger millage increase or force $29 million in operational cuts, which could be done but certainly won’t be comfortable.

I have to confess that I hesitated for a few moments in supporting even this no-brainer.  The current school board has not earned my trust or confidence with their past bumbling on plans for the high school, their embrace of 21st Century Skills nonsense, and their phony public input cheer-leading events.  I don’t even like the name of the pro-millage group, Smart Fayetteville Committee since it is obviously manipulative and not-at-all smart to dub whatever you support “smart.”

I also have to confess that if I had my druthers we would have two, smaller high schools rather than remodeling one big one.  I would gladly pay an even higher new millage for that.  But that option is not on the table.  The school district has moved forward with its remodeling plan and now our only choice is whether to pay more or less in interest payments.  I prefer paying less in interest even if it means having a higher millage for a while.

A couple of days ago, someone who identified himself as Jim Nicholas, “VP of Production” for Today in America, commented on my original post that discussed Fayetteville’s plans to pay the promotional group for airtime.  What he said and my response are here.

Full disclosure: I received no payment from Mr. Nicholas in exchange for allowing him to use this media channel.

-
On Tuesday, the Fayetteville City Council approved spending nearly $20,000 dollars to buy paid infomercial time on the infomercial show “Today in America.” See the Fayetteville Flyer coverage here.  See my previous post where I raised questions that the circumstances of this show contacting Fayetteville was a scam here. 

I guess we can at least be grateful that the company isn’t based in Nigeria.  We’d probably end up losing more than 20k.

At the same time, we should be ashamed that we aren’t spending this money locally.  There are great videographers at the UofA who could do a better and less expensive job.  So much for buying locally.

The biggest “scam” aspect of this entire enterprise is how the city seems to believe that they are somehow special to the show’s producers.  They continually point out that Today in America has a special interest in us.  In one news story, Mayor Jordan and Lindsley Smith characterize the show’s producers’ interest like this:

In the case of the local segment, the producers contacted Fayetteville officials several weeks ago to inquire about shooting the piece, said Mayor Lioneld Jordan. The production company took interest in the Fayetteville Forward economic development initiative Jordan used to ask residents what sort of community they wanted Fayetteville to be.

Lindsley Smith, the city’s communication director, said the show’s producers are also interested in taking a closer look at what contributes to what many see as Fayetteville’s high quality of life. The segment will highlight why Fayetteville is a top environment for business.

40/29 recently carried this quote:

Fayetteville wasn’t chosen randomly. The show’s producers focus on cities they say are hidden gems: nice places to live, with plenty of business opportunities, and communities that are still growing.

Like I pointed out in my earlier post, Today in America casts a broad net and will feature a story on anyone and everyone who is willing to pay their fee.  Here is a report saying the same from CBS MoneyWatch.com.

I’m not saying we aren’t special, just saying that you shouldn’t have to pay to be made to feel special.  Wait, isn’t that the plot of a recent Soderbergh film?

UPDATE: The NWA Times has a great piece about this in today’s paper.  In addition to expressing skepticism about the authenticity of Today In America’s interest in Fayetteville, they remind us that this is the same administration that was considering furloughs and asked voters to give them the power to re-allocate park development funds.

The Fayetteville Flyer is reporting (via TMZ) that Washington County Sheriff Tim Helder has decided to fire Jessie Lunderby.  Helder wrote a long letter that explains his reasoning.  A good amount of personal annoyance emanates from the text.  Helder also engages in some wild doublespeak about his reasoning.   Here’s an excerpt of what I am talking about:

“My decision to move on without you is not a decision to impose discipline…If I were to choose to keep you as an employee, I would go down the road of deciding whether to impose discipline.  Since I have decided to take a different path–choosing another employee–there is no reason to decide to impose discipline.  So, you may truthfully tell others that your employment termination was not a disciplinary termination.  It is a business decision…”

Uhhh, yeah.  So, in other words, I’m not going to punish you, I’m just going to fire you.  Does Helder think anyone in their right mind won’t see through that?  Seriously?

Jessie refused to sign the termination letter.

I imagine that this will be good for Jessie’s fifteen minutes of fame.  It will also be bad for Fayetteville.  We’ll will get tons of negative press as a prude little town that has no respect for free-expression.  There will likely be a lawsuit.  And I also imagine this will hurt Helder in the next election.

I guess posing nude really is worse than locking someone up for four days without food, water, or a bathroom.

Or will they?  After not receiving any raises last year, University employees are going to have to wonder for another six months whether or not they’ll ever see the merit raises that were promised to them this year.  (Bobby Petrino and John Pelphrey, however, will get their raises either way).

I don’t always agree with Mike Masterson of the Dem-Gaz, but his article about the UA-Board-of Trustees-approved merit raises was spot-on.  You can read it here.  Below I’ve reprinted some of his best points.

“Who can university presidents and chancellors trust if their decisions, and those of their trustees, can be overruled by a governor? Must university trustees now check with the governor before making decisions about managing their institutions? If so, then of what real use is a university president, chancellor or board of trustees?

Injecting state government directly into the decision-making machinery of a university sets a dangerous precedent. Doing so makes it extremely difficult for university leaders to confidently manage when they don’t know if their decisions might be nixed a week later by a bureaucrat or the governor.

Why would a governor even get involved in these sorts of decisions when the state provides less than half of what’s required to educate a college student? And where do the boundaries exist in such instances, if at all? With curriculum? Admissions? Hiring? Administration?

Did the governor and the state’s chief financial guru not realize that UA-Fayetteville already had announced and programmed the raises into its computers? If so, why didn’t they talk with UA leaders before issuing what amounted to a political edict to recall those increases for the time being?

It’s the poorly timed, uncommunicative and needlessly heavy-handed way this unexpected disappointment unfolded that has left leaders at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville wondering what authority, if any, they truly have within their own institution.”

I would add one more point.  Masterson mentions that University leaders are left wondering what power they have, and in the case of Chancellor Gearhart and Vice Chancellor Pederson, I agree.  They’re out there trying to do what is best for their employees but they lack the power to do much in this situation.  I have less sympathy for Sugg (whose annual salary, by the way, is over a half-million dollars a year).  He didn’t have to accept the recommendation from the governor, there was nothing binding about it.  In the end, the most Beebe could do was “encourage” that the U of A not give raises at this time.

But Sugg quickly announced that there would still be no raises because he felt “we should honor the request of our governor.”

Honor the request of our governor?!   What kind of good-ole-boy rhetoric is that?!

Here’s an idea for Alan Sugg:  If you feel like honoring someone, how about honoring your commitment to the 1,200+ employees of the U of A who were promised raises?

Some jerks in Mississippi (they’re probably hanging out with Houston Nutt as we speak) have a problem with Saturday’s planned gay pride parade in Fayetteville. 

The president of the “American Family Association” told the Northwest Arkansas Times:

“We call on Mayor Lioneld Jordan of Fayetteville to cancel his plans to issue a proclamation celebrating homosexual behavior and Gay Pride,” wrote Tim Wildmon, association president, in a statement. “There is nothing about homosexual conduct to be proud of, and much to be ashamed of.”

It’s all pretty laughable, really.  Check out the fun they’re having over at The Fayetteville Flyer.  Matthew Petty even posted a letter from one of the nutjobs.  In the letter the guy calls us…wait for it…Gayetteville!

UPDATE: Sigh, looks like Fayetteville’s in the national media.  Again.

In this video, Sheriff Tim Helder has some strong words to say about Jessie Lunderby’s recent art project.  Sheriff Helder sounds pretty serious about conducting a thorough investigation.  He clearly feels that the incident is an embarrassment to the department.

In order to put this into perspective, recall that two years ago, local incompetence led to Adriana Torres-Flores spending four days in a holding cell down at the Washington County courthouse.  She had no food, no water, and no toilet.  She drank her own urine in order to survive.  What was the result of that incident, you ask?

Was it an embarrassment to the law enforcement of the region?  Just Google Adrian Torres-Flores.  The national media had a heyday with the story, and it added to the perception that southerners don’t treat everyone equally.  Helder and Hunton were even publicly chastised by officials within the Mexican government.

How did Helder respond to the near death caused by the inexcusable negligence of one of his employees?  Well, he made some excuses for him, saying that the bailiff was simply busy and had forgot.  Judge Hunton also avoided saying much that was critical, offering that “The best thing that we can do is to make sure it doesn’t happen to anybody else.”

Ultimately bailiff Jarrod Hankins received a 30-day suspension without pay.  In his own words to local media 40/29, Helder articulated his forgive and forget philosophy:

“I realize some people may have expected Hankins to be terminated, however my philosophy is if an employee makes a mistake while trying their best to perform their duties I will try to salvage them,” Helder said.

It’s already been interesting to see how differently the Sheriff’s department has reacted to Jessie Lunderby’s art project.  The official punishment is expected to be handed down early this week.  I wonder how her punishment will compare to the one given to the guy who nearly killed a woman and caused an international incident.

UPDATE: The Northwest Arkansas TImes had an editorial on Saturday with a simliar (too similar?) take.  See here.

Some Northwest Arkansas prudes are freaking out about a local woman’s art project.  Jessie Lunderby, a 21 year-old Washington County jailer, posed nude (gasp!) for Playboy.com.  You can see the “scandalous” pictures here (fair warning, they include nudity!).

A few local yokels are up in arms, some saying she should be fired.  KHOG has a video story that you can watch here.  The Dem-Gaz covered the story too, but, alas, did not include any of the art.  And we wonder why print media is dying.

I doubt Fayetteville residents actually care that much about what Jessie does in her spare time.  It’s not like Lunderby locked up a Hispanic woman and forgot about her for four days, leaving her without food, water, or a bathroom.  And it’s not like she was secretly watching inmates undress. She was simply producing art in her spare time.

Still, in the 40/29 story, Sheriff Hoyt made it clear that he is against free artistic expression.  Here’s an excerpt:

“Hoyt said they’re conducting an investigation to determine if Lunderby violated any one of two policies — conduct unbecoming or engaging in off-duty employment in an area that’s sexual in nature.”

“It goes against the very things that let people have confidence in our agency,” said Hoyt. “Subscribers can actually pay money, so somebody’s making money on this and money is changing hands. So it is a business and so we feel that that policy has been violated as well.”

Sexual in nature?  Maybe Hoyt should get his mind out of the gutter.  When I looked at the pictures, I saw beautiful works of art.  I guess to some people, it’s only art if it’s 500 years old and painted by an Italian.  Maybe Jessie should’ve posed with some swans.

Fayetteville voters overwhelmingly approved the proposed change for HMR tax revenues, by a margin of 81% to 19%.  Mayor Jordan was quoted in today’s paper saying that “This will help us in our general fund.”  In the coming months, we’ll keep tabs on general fund spending and spending on park development.  As we have said before, changing the park development portion of the HMR tax was a tradeoff.  It meant that park development funds could be diverted to park maintenance, and as a result general fund revenues could be spent on other things.  Since Fayetteville’s politicians never spelled out what those tradeoffs specifically entailed, it will be interesting when we find out.

The ballot language was horribly misleading.  Taken at face value, it apppeared that one was either voting for park “development, construction and maintenance” or against park “development, construction and maintenance.”  In truth, the only choice being decided yesterday concerned ”maintenance.”  Intentionally misleading?  Almost certainly.  But, I expect it would have passed anyway.

(Guest Post by Jay P. Greene via jaypgreene.com)

The City of Fayetteville, like many local governments, is facing a budget squeeze as revenues have declined without a commensurate reduction in expenditures.  In those instances, responsible public officials should explain to voters that either certain services will need to be cut or taxes raised.

We don’t have that kind of public official in Fayetteville.  Instead, our local officials seem to fancy themselves as slick politicians in the minor leagues, honing their skills at the art of public manipulation so that someday they may get called up to the big leagues of deception and lording over other people.

To offset the shortfall in the city budget, Mayor Lionel Jordan and his backers have proposed grabbing money from the hotel, motel, and restaurant (HMR) tax that is currently dedicated for park development so that they can use it to cover park maintenance and then redirect the general operating funds currently devoted to park maintenance to other parts of the city budget.

Jordan and friends are saying they want voters to approve changes in the HMR tax so that the revenue can be used for things other than the development of parks, giving the city more “flexibility.”  This is just doublespeak.  The flexibility they want is the flexibility to reduce park development spending so that they can keep other city operations unchanged.

Personally, I prefer the development of more parks and the cutting of other city services.  Our parks and public bike trails are some of the best things about Fayetteville.  But I could be persuaded that we needed to defer additional park development to avoid cuts in other services if they presented the trade-offs directly and honestly.  Make the case that additional park development is less important than other city services that would be continued.

But no.  Our local public officials refuse to treat us like grown-ups and have to use deception rather than presenting us with difficult choices straightforwardly.  This is the same kind of doublespeak nonsense we saw with the business license proposal. That wasn’t really about “helping promote local business.”  That was about facilitating the taxation and regulation of businesses while helping the Chamber of Commerce effectively compel membership.

And don’t buy the fall-back argument on the HMR tax change that says we are in danger of developing so many parks that the cost of maintaining all of them would be prohibitive.  If this were true, advocates for changing the HMR tax would need to present facts about rising park maintenance costs.  They haven’t.  Park maintenance costs have not been growing at a significantly faster rate than the city budget.  In addition, park maintenance only costs $1.9 million out of a total city budget that exceeds $120 million.  The HMR tax dedicated to park development generates about $2.3 million per year.

And also don’t buy the argument that we are just correcting a “mistake” from when the HMR tax was initially adopted.  It may well be that city officials meant to include maintenance and development as potential uses of the tax, but that’s not what was on the ballot and what voters ultimately approved.  We can’t know whether voters would have approved the measure if it had permitted the funds to be used for park maintenance as well as development.  And voters are under no compulsion now to allow the money to be redirected for other purposes.  If city officials want to convince voters to approve the measure, they need to make the case that those new bike trails we are developing are less important than other uses for the same money.

Update: The NWArk Times is endorsing the tax change (subscription required).  They say a lot, but don’t offer up many good points.   I think the question is simple: If you really want more parks and trails in Fayetteville, and you think there are other places where the city could cut funding before they cut park development funding, then you should vote against this change.–BK