It’s worth a word of appreciation to the members of the Benton County Quorum Court who have devoted time and energy to holding “town hall”-style forums in the districts they represent to help residents understand the issue on the Feb. 11 election.
Justices of the peace Susan Anglin in District 9 and Kurt Moore in District 13 sponsored one event at Highfill City Hall. Anglin had another in Centerton and plans a third at 6:30 p.m. Jan. 30 at the Centerton Fire Department. Tom Allen from District 4 held one in Cave Springs. Patrick Carr, District 12, held one Monday in Siloam Springs. Residents have other opportunities to learn more about ambulance services and the proposed fee:
Steve Curry, who represents District 11, plans a meeting at 6 p.m. Friday at the Billy V. Hall Senior Center in Gravette.
Brent Meyers, District 14, plans a meeting from 1 to 4 p.m. Saturday in the City Council room at Lowell City Hall.
Pat Adams, District 6, plans a meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday in the community room of the Pea Ridge Fire Department.
From the comments we’ve heard so far, nobody seems entirely comfortable with the proposed $85-per-household annual fee, even those members of the Quorum Court who supported its passage. The folks who have supported it, however, know that you sometimes have to accept a less-than-perfect solutions for the greater benefit. Maintaining a reliable system of emergency medical response for unincorporated areas of Benton County seems to fit that bill.
These meetings aren’t a campaign for votes, necessarily. Rather, the justices of the peace say they want to make sure voters make an informed decision. That’s important, because there’s plenty of room for misunderstanding of this complex issue involving medical care, seven ambulance services, and a lot of viewpoints.
“I’m not here to tell you you have to vote for it or not. I’m not telling you you’re going to like it. I’m here to tell you what is happening. The bottom line if this doesn’t pass is we cut services,” Carr told his audience.
The justices of the peace are taking responsible steps to inform their constituents of the proposal and the ramifications if voters say “no.” Perhaps they can also use the conversations as a way to gauge possible next steps should voters reject the ambulance fee. Is it that they don’t want a fee at all, or is it that $85 is too high? The fee faces an uphill battle, it seems, but this critically important public safety issue will not be settled with a simple “no” vote. Hopefully, as they educate voters, justices of the peace are themselves picking up an education on what options the public might find acceptable if the Quorum Court’s fee isn’t.
The status quo is on life support with a dicey prognosis unless there’s an infusion of cash to support city ambulance services. A “yes” vote will settle the matter, at least for a while. A “no” vote simply means going back to the drawing board.