Another shoe dropped in Fayetteville's controversial adoption of an ordinance creating the post of civil rights administrator to investigate claims of discrimination.
The original ordinance came from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest organization fighting for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but was whittled down considerably by City Attorney Kit Williams because it contained sections he viewed as unconstitutional. Then, aldermen hashed out a few amendments to moderately tailor it to the specifics of Fayetteville's concerns and circumstances.
In the end, the responsibility to designate a civil rights administrator was assigned to Mayor Lioneld Jordan and the city's future mayors. In the midst of the debate, Jordan steadfastly steered clear of identifying who on his staff would be named and originally anticipated it would require an expansion of city staff. As debate wore on, he changed his expectations, saying it could be handled by existing staff.
Last week, we learned his solution wasn't on his staff at all. Jordan designated Williams to serve as the civil rights administrator to investigate complaints and try to mediate conflicts before referring unresolved cases to the city prosecutor.
I'm not so sure the mayor has the authority to add these duties to the city attorney.
Under Arkansas law, the city attorney is elected by the people and his duties are outlined by the City Council.
Let's think about why state law would set up the city attorney as a separate office. The person who fills the mayor's office is, without question, a political figure, elected to administer the city under policies and ordinances established by the City Council. The city attorney is separately elected as an independent voice, ostensibly free from the mayor's political considerations so that he can do his job with clarity of purpose.
If the mayor can add and subtract duties of the city attorney on his own, what does that say about the independent role of the city attorney selected by voters? The process is not intended to create just another staffer for the mayor to oversee. And isn't the mayor sidestepping the responsibilities the City Council placed on him?
Kit Williams touched on this in the midst of debate over the civil rights ordinance. Alderman Alan Long questioned why responsibility to investigate wouldn't make the most sense within the city attorney's office. Without hesitation, Williams explained that would create a conflict of interest because the city prosecutor -- an employee of the city attorney's office -- is ultimately responsible for prosecuting cases under the law.
It made sense. Until the mayor needed someone other than his direct staff to shoulder a serious responsibility the City Council saw fit to place in the hands of the mayor.
Williams didn't want the job, but the mayor convinced him to take it at least until Oct. 1, 2015. So, Williams will spend a year setting up the policies and procedures for the civil rights administrator office the City Council wanted the mayor to be responsible for executing.
Critics at times suggested the city was adopting a law with a "we'll figure out as we go along" attitude. This designation certainly appears to reflect Jordan's discomfort that anyone on city staff is capable of doing that. A skeptic might also suggest a politician might have reasons for shifting the responsibilities outside his staff to another office independently elected by the people.
Let's also consider the impact similar scenarios could have on electoral process. Williams will serve as city attorney for another four years because nobody filed to run against him this year. Would that have been different had potential candidates and the electorate have known the office of city attorney would also become the office of civil rights administrator? Would the details of the administrator responsibilities by worth of public debate in the context of who sought the office?
City councils have authority to set the duties of the city attorney. Any changes to those duties should not come on the whim of a mayor, but the collective wisdom of eight aldermen. That process doesn't remove politics from the issue, but it is somewhat mitigated by the need to achieve a majority in a deliberative body.The City Council placed this responsibility within the mayor's realm. He supervises city staffers, not other elected officials. That's where the civil rights administrator's duties should remain.
Supporters expect businesses to abide by the new civil rights administrator ordinance as it was approved by the City Council. Is there any reason to expect the mayor and the city itself to also abide by state law?
GREG HARTON IS OPINION PAGE EDITOR FOR NWA MEDIA.
Commentary on 09/08/2014