Alderman Kristi Kendrick noted at the August 28 meeting that in spite of council voting to get City Code updated, City Clerk/Treasurer Ann Armstrong had not addressed aldermen with a date for when codification would be completed. Therefore, she introduced a motion stating that City Code be brought up to date by Oct. 31, 2017, and that Armstrong report to council at both September meetings on her progress.
Armstrong responded that to date probably six ordinances were not codified since council had voted as Kendrick mentioned. Armstrong said she sent in what she had prepared for the codification, but a new group connected to the Municipal League was doing codifications, and they were inundated. She said there had to be a restart on the process because codification is not mechanical but involves humans, and the ones she dealt with were cooperative, but overwhelmed. She was confident future codifications would go smoother, and would proceed as quickly as possible, but could not predict what people in Little Rock would do or when.
She also said exact ordinances as approved by council are posted online.
Alderman David Mitchell said he appreciated updates from Armstrong but did not think the city clerk needed an end date to get the codifications done.
Armstrong replied with what has become her mantra, “I will answer any question if I get a call or email. It does not require council attention. Just ask.”
Aldermen Mickey Schneider and Peg Adamson said they considered the work was getting done, so Kendrick’s motion was not necessary.
Armstrong added that how ordinances are added to City Code is not always a clean fit. Sometimes parts of ordinances go in several places, so Kendrick amended her motion by omitting the October 31 end date.
Alderman Bob Thomas then asked City Attorney Tim Weaver if he had said no elected official could tell another elected official how to do her job, and Weaver replied affirmatively. Weaver also mentioned an ordinance prevails over codification if there is a discrepancy.
Kendrick’s was the only Yes vote on the motion, so it failed.
Code committee nixed
Kendrick then introduced a motion to establish a committee “to investigate alternatives to the electronic posting of the City Code via municode.com, which alternatives may be less costly than municode.com and permit realtime alterations to the electronically posted City Code.”
She said she was surprised to hear updates to City Code had been postponed because of the cost. She wanted to keep Code “constantly current.”
“All I’m suggesting is a committee should be established to investigate the process,” she commented.
Adamson then asked, “Would the committee be telling the clerk how to do her job?”
“Could be, and that would not be proper,” Weaver explained. He said the city attempted a similar change years ago with unacceptable and expensive results.
Armstrong reminded council a person can look online at an ordinance to see what would be going into City Code.
Mitchell reiterated the ordinance is the prevailing document, and he was not buying into setting up a committee, so vote on this motion was identical to her first motion, it failed.