Arkansas Blog

Well, she got it half right. Repaying the city was the right thing to do. The weasel-worded explanation instead of an apology betrays her true character. We really don't need her in a position of responsibility in our city government.

Now, if only the red on her face can fade, to say nothing of the egg on it.

==================
What a load of crap....
==================

Time to audit the city. If their excuse is poor accounting controls then what else is being misspent.

Like all weasel-worded statements from politicians of Stacy Hurst's ilk, this contains not a single word of contrition.

What this statement actually says, when run through the bullshit filtration system is: I was caught trying to chisel the taxpayers of Little Rock out of $1,700 worth of ego-gratification and I am being forced by public exposure of my venality to repay the money. If no one had caught me I would have been GLAD to spend $1,700 of tax money on a pretty picture that helps me get re-elected, no matter that the city has "pressing issues of public safety and economic development. If y'all hadn't caught me I'd have spent my own $1,700 on a new purse from Nieman Marcus."

This is not an 'appearance of impropriety', this is graft pure and simple. And what it reveals about the entire culture of the city board is nothing but slime. If she hadn't been caught there is not a chance in hell that she would've paid it back, nothing in her makeup or statement reveals any semblance of shame or understanding of the impropriety of the thing in the first place.

I don't give a tinker's damn about the $1700, it's the whole culture of privilege that surrounds the board that has to be destroyed.

Ab active, effective, widely read local news blog will do it every time. Keep it up guys.

Perhaps Stacy can spend her glamor shot money on better causes.

Let me see if I can figure out why I should move to LR if I am professional or company:
1. LRSD is constant dissary
2. Alltel just got sold
3. You pay two people 160K in city gov't to do the same job
4. Citizens want one city director removed and another spent 1700 of the city's money for a glamour shot in the society mag
5. Traffic congestion in WLR is terrible
6. The homeless are not wanted or treated as people
7. High crime rate (ok, murders are down, but burglaries are up)

Hmm, yes, all of those make LR a desirable city for me. No thanks, I'll just keep driving in from Jacksonville

MEMO
To the People of Little Rock
From the City of Little Rock

We were stupid.
Again.
Forgive us.

The City of Little Rock recently spent $1,700 of your tax dollars for nothing more than the promotion of the vanity of a single city board member (she's already got a lot of it!). We outrageously spent the money on a puff piece offered up by the publishers of a glitzy but superficial magazine aimed at, and limited to, the residents and retail patrons of the Chenal-Hillcrest-Heights axis and those who own second homes among the seven-figure condominiums being built downtown. But, give us credit: at least we didn't (or haven't yet) spent those dollars on SYNC.

We could have fixed a few pot holes instead.
We could have provided hundreds of meals to the homeless.
We could have put gasoline in police cars.
We could have given Mayor Stodola a portion of his much-deserved raise. (Uhh, better strike this one -- M.S.).

But we didn't.

We were stupid.
Again.
This might be stupider than the Ringgold-City promotions deal.

We're sorry. We can't promise it won't happen again, but we'll keep this as a form letter just in case.

Apparently Bruce Moore authorized the $1700 for this bullshit. I don't think we need to hang Stacy Hurst out to dry completely on this one. Just get ready folks, there is going to be another upcoming ad at the taxpayer cost of $200-$300 congratulating Bryan Day for completing some bullshit course. I am a businessperson, when one of my employees does something good I don't run $200-300 ads congratulating them. I can't afford it. It's not prudent, I have to watch my expenses. But since the city is using our money they feel they can piss our hard earned taxpayer money away to congratulate thier employees for doing thier jobs we pay them to do. I guess the folks at City Hall feel like Dean Kumpuris, when the Advertising and Promotions bozos got caught pissing away our money, he said "they didn't do a damn thing wrong." Well I am here to tell you that, that bunch need to be watched very closely.

Quapaw is right. This whole thing has the feel of the LRCVB/A&P misadventure, full of arrogance and assumed privilege. It's time to turn the whole bunch out and start over. We could have a better city council picking names out of a hat.

both of them need to be hung out to dry....
strike the out to dry part

Yes, let's move forward and get off my smokin ass! If'n I had a job and if'n I was so good at my job that my boss wanted to pay 1700 bucks to parade my face in a slick magazine.....I'd make him a better deal, I'd say skip the magazine and just give me 750 bucks and I go buy a couple of pairs of shoes and my wife one of them new vibrators ya start with a rope. I'd still hit that, and it would cost her nor the City of LR nothing!

I think we should send Hurst a power gift for doing the right thing after being caught with her hand in OUR cookie jar.. I suggest we send her a power wash-rag to wipe off all that power-cake makeup she dipped herself in for the photo posted here yesterday.

I know this is off topic but Little Rock is the 19th sweatiest city in the US according to MSNBC.

What a great honor we received today.

I still don't think Stacy and/or the City are the only stories here. What about the three women from local (respected) nonprofits, to which many of us have donated money or otherwise support? It might be slightly less insulting, but as those organizations raise money from donors, shouldn't they also be pressed on whether the funds of their donors were used for clearly self-promotional (and not organization promotional) advertising?
What say you Arkansas Arc, Rockefeller and Community Foundation? Whose money was used for the ego inflation of those three women? Theirs or that of your donors?

Looks like the picture from the CIty of LR website, so Eureka Springs, AR, your assement of her make up just for the photo is off. I don't think she has on a lot of make up. She is very beautiful, no doubting that. But the issues isn't her looks (is it?) It's the $1700 spent on the ad. And I don't think that is the real issue. The real issue is that Max rooted out the fact that the information was left off her phots/page. If the City has listed that info, there would not have been an issue.

Hurst said "There are pressing issues such as public safety and economic development that deserve our full attention. Let us move forward together to ensure our City is safe, sound, and living up to its outstanding potential." My question is did these issues not deserve full attention while she was being photgraphed and interviewed for the article? And by the by, I bet Bruce Moore said no to the approval of this $1,700 bill. He may have been overridden, but I bet it turned his stomach just as it has with everyone else.

I work for someone whose politics are 180 degrees opposite of mine. He's as conservative as I am liberal. He is also a stand-up guy. In a similar situation, even if the actual decision had been made by a subordinate, he would have said, "This was wrong, and I take full responsibility. It was a lapse in judgment that will not happen again. I apologize." That's why I am fiercely loyal to him even if his politics are much different from mine. Stacy Hurst should have taken full responsibility for this episode and apologized, even if others were involved. That's what a stand-up person would have done. That's what Stacy Hurst did not do. And that is why she has to go.

Concerned Citizen,

I spoke to Bruce Moore, and he did in fact approve the $1700 ad. He even tried to defend it. Let's run the city like a business not like a free for all candy jar. Moore and that gang are sneaky. They are going to run an ad touting Bryan Days completion of some bullshit course in an up coming issue. They better asked Bryan about his temper and his yelling fits, to some of the vendors at the river market. Thats more news than a bullshit course he completes on the taxpayer's dime.

The city officials are taking a lot of grief over this, but will Soiree be held accountable and make a statement about misleading readers?

That's the sort of thing in the real world that leads to editors resigning or being fired. But, this is Little Rock and it's a faux "high society" magazine, so I guess it doesn't matter much.

I'll always wonder the next time I'm at the doctor's office or wherever they're laying around what's real and what's not real. Their track record ain't great.

Billary - do not compare Bruce Moore to that self-serving Mayor and Vice-Mayor combo. Bruce Moore is a man of character and class, which cannot be found in either Stodola or Hurst, as Pavel said she should have taken full responsibilty and apologized. Have you ever heard Stodola apologize for anything? Where's the Hurst apology? These people think they never owe the citizens of LR an apology. When are you running for Mayor?

I'll take the other side and say that Power Women -- and Men -- do things like this all the time. This took power, right? This is an example how one rises above their peers in the dog-eat-dog world of corporate politics.

And to someone reading Soiree it paints city leaders in a favorable light. Lots of influencers and decision makers read that publication, and the more they see LR as progressive, the better.

Finally, in terms of space and placement, $1700 seems like a pretty good deal. The very fact it's turning into a 'scandal' adds even more to the PR value. "Say what you want, just spell my name right," as they say.

As a postscript, if you want to cry over taxpayer money, get to work on the developers out in WLR. Stacy's an amateur compared to them.

I'll bet there are tens of thousands of working, unemployed or retired citizens of Little Rock who would sit down and cry tears of joy if they were told they would bring home 1700 dollars next month.

"You may be looking at someone you'd like to hire," writes Becki with an "i" Moore in her editor's column about these "powerful," "professional" women. There's no hint from Becki that these "interesting" women paid to be featured.

I'm not reading any indignant comments about Soiree's angle with this, but as far as I am concerned you can count my one indignant response as indignant enough for a million.

If you pay money to Soiree behind the scenes then you get a professional endorsement from Becki that includes her encouragement that you be hired for your skill.

Again, I say, this is appalling on the part of Soiree. Also appalling that in French you'd never use the word Soiree as title for a periodical without the article preceding it. Le Journal, Le Monde, La Soiree. But then, this is only pretend society.

"Is it the real turtle soup, or is it the mock?" asked Cole Porter in one of his witty and sophisticated love songs.

It's the mock, Cole.

I'm with Billary on this one. The whole lot (Moore included) need to step up. And I completely agree that Bryan Day's feet need to be held to fire on the River Market. It definitely looks a lot nicer (which they did just in time for the NCAA tournament) but the vendor turnover, those empty stalls and the animosity of even the existing vendors toward the "City Management" for their management style speaks volumes, pretty organge chairs and whimsical lighting notwithstanding.
And while we're on the River Market, why is the farmer's market now Kroger East? Just watch as Argenta's new "locally grown" REAL farmer's market makes the south side's look like a convenience store. Shouldn't be quite so hard to run a River Market so perfectly poised to succeed. And you know it is bad when the existing vendors talk to customers about it. Oops, I probably shouldn't have said that...Bryan might go yell at them now.
And Duh, just because power people do stuff like this all the time doesn't make it right and it certainly shouldn't be the taxpayer's (or charitable contributor's) dime. If an individual wants that kind of individual publicity, the individual should pay for it.

I don't live in Little Rock, but grew up in North Little Rock and visit regularly. I think most of you folks are just jealous of these people's celebrity. She didn't initiate the photo spread. The publisher did. Do you think they're going to select ugly prominent women for their photo shoot?

Maybe this is different than a society magazine, but I've been reading Arkansas Business for a while. It's a well-done rag, but they've got businesses buying special ads every week. Jeff Hankins couldn't publish it otherwise. It was said that Little Rock should be run like a business. Guess what? This is what businesses do. They take advantage of these opportunities to tell their story. This controversy is the business we call the City of Little Rock doing the same. If you don't like that they spent their money that way, that's fine. But it's not unethical, immoral. or fattening. It's a common business practice. Sometimes they call it "branding." (I can't wait to see what some of you folks will do with that!) Maybe the business rag is different than the society rag, but I still don't think this is a big deal.

She paid the money back when she really didn't have to. She did nothing wrong. Get over it.

Statement from Jeff Hankins falls far short. Just not adequate. Should go without saying. You don't, it is journalism 101, you just don't ever run a promo section like that, and that's what it was, and not tag it as such. And you don't have the editor set the section up in her column like she did. It's deceptive and wrong on so many levels and doesn't hold water when held up to any accepted standards and rules of journalistic integrity even if it is a "society" pub.

You could pick this apart from any number of angles and you'd be right on all of them. You could have a field day picking this apart. I don't begrudge them doing what they have to do to drive revenue. But do it ethically and according to standards--clear standards--and don't mislead your readers. Don't do it.

I'm disappointed that that is the extent of his statement. To me it barely gets at the deeper issues, the real issues here. It doesn't begin to acknowledge the accepted norms and standards of journalism that were tromped on here.

Thank you, LAB. I feel better that at least one person feels as you do. It's about money, sure. But this sort of selective "journalism" without identfying the profits associated with the stories is deceptive, dishonest, disheartening and disgusting.

I do hope that "Soiree" doesn't try this stunt again.

The folks at Soiree need a public arse whuppin. What they did was shady and it put all the women profiled in a bad light. All of those women deserved the recognition whether they paid for the photo/ad or not. Hurst has corrected her lapse in judgment. This flap should initiate a more substantive discussion on what is an appropriate city expenditure. While this example was clearly out of bounds would it be inappropriate for the city to buy a table at a Center for Youth & Families fund raising event? Maybe the city should establish a foundation fueled by private donations to pay for PR expenditures.

And maybe Soiree/Arkansas Business should buy tables at each of the "sponsored" non-profits' fundraising events in the coming "social season."

Perplexed, you are full of it!

The taxpayers of Little Rock should not pay for an ego-boosting "power" profile for a woman who is elected to office.

Period.

If businesses think it is worthwhile to pay to have one of their executives "profiled" as a "power woman" that's fine.

With nonprofits, the issue becomes marginally unethical, especially if contributors' money was used to puff up the executive rather than being spent of whatever worthy cause is involved.

In the case of City Hall there is absolutely no wiggle-room. It was DEFINITELY unethical and probably illegal.

Any women in the room??

Or are all of you posters guys?? Curious to know if women have a different take on this.

Any women in the room??

Or are all of you posters guys?? Curious to know if women have a different take on this.

"Any women in the room??"

If you can find a man who can quote Cole Porter's song "At Long Last Love," then send him my way, please.

Makes no difference whether it's a man or woman in this case, as far as my opinion counts. A male editor of "Soiree" would be just as culpable in my eyes. As for the women who paid money to be "honored," it might be fair to say they thought there would be a disclaimer of some sort. Again, the gender makes no difference to me.

What I find disheartening aside from the lack of journalistic, balanced practice in this case is also the rush to be publicized by this opportunistic "Soiree." My heart breaks for the non-profits who have to participate in this game in order to make fundraising requirements for their worthy institutions. And my heart sours at Soiree for taking advantage of them.

Perplexed, I don't care who initiated it, I paid for it and that is galling. It's not the amount, the LRPD probably burns $1700 gas in one shift, it's the fact that the impropriety of the whole thing didn't cross their minds. Apparently, no one down there in City Hall looked at that $1700 charge and said - Wait a minute, why are we paying for this? I'm sure Ms Hurst is a fine person and her family & friends love her to death. But, what flaw in her reasoning led her to believe that I should pay for this?

If anyone doesn't believe this is a big deal, they don't understand that this is a symptom of exactly what is wrong with the LR city gov't.

re: Jeff's statement:

==================
What a load of MORE crap....
==================

Arkansas Business should refund all the money to the charities and the city. The city needs to pass some regulations regarding its spending. No city money should ever be spent on anything other than the city's needs and business.

This incident seems to be honorably settled, although Ms. Hurst's "let us move forward together" statement should have expressed some contrition about her bad judgement in the matter. Jeff Hankins' statement was better, and I think his publications will be more sensitive to the source of funds used to purchase advertising in the future.

The interesting thing in the Democrat-Gazette article was the statement by Arkansas Ethics Commission director Graham Sloan, who doesn't see any ethical problems with using taxpayer funds to purchase advertising to glorify incumbent officeholders. Maybe l'Affaire Soirre doesn't rise to the status of a crime or regulatory violation, but the average Arkansan can see that it was highly unethical. Sloan's statement certainly doesn't inspire any confidence that he is capable of spotting behavior that is obviously unethical.

If I recall correctly, a couple of decades ago, the ethics movement in Arkansas got a lot of momentum from a scandal in North Little Rock, where a mayor got caught using the city phone to make dozens of long-distance phone calls to his cheerleader girlfriend in Fayetteville. There were many calls for legislation to prevent these sorts of abuses - but then Bill Clinton got involved and hijacked to legislation to mostly exclude the executive branch and focus the ethics laws on legislators.

I KNEW this whole thing was Bill Clinton's fault!

No I bet it's Huckabee's fault!