The Jefferson County Quorum Court failed to pass a 2025 budget during a meeting rescheduled by Jefferson County Judge Gerald Robinson on Monday. With nine votes needed, the ordinance failed 8 to 5.
With a scene of intense debate and procedural wrangling in recent meetings, the court has wrestled with issues ranging from budget appropriations to the proper procedures for calling meetings, alongside concerns about personnel actions and communication among justices of the peace.
Monday’s meeting continued the trend of procedural challenges. There were discussions and disputes over text messages regarding the consensus meeting held last week by the justices. Questions arose regarding the proper procedures for canceling meetings and notifying quorum court members. Justice Patricia Royal-Johnson expressed frustration about not receiving proper notification of a previous meeting, leading to a prolonged debate about communication protocols and the validity of decisions made during that meeting. The county attorney attempted to clarify the procedures, but disagreements persisted.
There was also discussion about whether the procedure ordinance contained the right for the majority to call a special meeting. Justice Alfred Carroll referenced a state statute allowing them to do so.
Last week’s meeting proceeded as scheduled despite a written cancellation attempt by Robinson. The majority of the Quorum Court members were present, while Robinson was absent. During that meeting, they successfully overrode the judge’s veto of the procedural ordinance.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Those justices included Carroll, who chaired the meeting, with fellow justices of the peace Brenda Bishop Gaddy, Melanie Johnson Dumas, Reginald Adams, Margarette Williams, Cedric Jackson, Reginald Johnson and Richard Victorino.
A question arose regarding the meeting’s legality. Carroll affirmed the meeting’s legality, stating that the veto override issue needed to be addressed at the next regular meeting, but Robinson deemed that meeting invalid.
During Monday’s meeting, a vote to override the veto of the county judge was the first item on the agenda, even though it was successfully voted on by the majority of the justices last week. Justices raised the question of whether it’s appropriate to vote again if the issue was already addressed in a previous meeting. Robinson questioned the validity of the previous meeting due to a potential lack of proper notification.
The veto was voted on again and overridden 8-5.
An appropriation ordinance to provide transfers within the road department was debated at length, with questions raised about the impact of moving salary monies and how it would affect the 2025 budget. This ordinance authorizes the county judge to transfer $445,185.83 from salaries.
The treasurer explained that expenditures from the current 2024 budget would go against the 2025 figures.
Williams raised concerns about moving salary monies to other items, especially if it means laid-off employees won’t be rehired. The motion failed 8-5.
Also failing was an appropriation ordinance to transfer funds in the county assessor’s office.
The court also discussed paying interest on loans, with Carroll questioning what the interest payments were for. It was clarified by Robinson that the money was already in the 2024 budget and was a transfer from one line to the next.
When it came to the 2025 budget presented by Robinson, Carroll noted that the quorum court budget appears to be reduced and asked why. He also expressed concern about Article 3, which states that expenditures shall not be restricted to line-item expenditure codes. He worried that this gives too much flexibility to department heads.
The 2025 budget was a central focus of the meeting, with lengthy discussions about appropriations, transfers between funds and specific line items. Johnson raised concerns about specific allocations and requested clarification on the financial implications of certain decisions.
The meeting was frequently interrupted by outbursts, side conversations and challenges to the chair’s authority.
The meeting concluded with the final moments marked by continued disagreement and accusations, particularly from Robinson, who claimed that the meeting was invalid due to procedural violations and lack of proper notification to the press.
One of the primary concerns Johnson raised after the meeting was the allocation of funds for vehicles versus employee salaries. He expressed disapproval of laying off employees to pay for vehicles, stating, “What you’re talking about here is laying off these employees again, another year to pay for vehicles… a good steward of money would know how much he has in his budget.”
Johnson emphasized their refusal to vote for actions that would result in layoffs.
Victorino, the newest JP who had been abstaining from voting until recently, explained his decision-making process, which involved reviewing statutes, comparing local laws to the “letter of the law” and polling 12 different counties.
Victorino mentioned meeting with department heads and elected officials, but expressed having unanswered questions. “There are some questions that I have that I haven’t got answered, so in good conscience, I could not make a vote for something that I don’t have all the information,” he stated. Concerns regarding budget cuts, specifically for “Mecca” and “OEM,” were also raised, leading to the need for further discussion. Victorino acknowledged his position as potentially the deciding vote and clarified his approach:
“I’m not on any side. And I purposely, you know, I didn’t reach out to anybody, pretty much,” he said. “I did my own research.”
Victorino confirmed having met with Robinson about budget questions but felt further clarification was needed, especially after “red flags have popped out.”
