Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 (2026)
Appointment and removal of department heads
✓ current as of May 2026
-
- Mayors in cities of the first class and second class and incorporated towns shall have the power to appoint and remove all department heads, including city and town marshals when an ordinance has been passed making city and town marshals appointed, unless the city or town council shall vote by a two-thirds majority of the total membership of the council to override the mayor's action.
- Provided, however, that in cities of the first class and second class with civil service commissions, the governing body of the city may delegate by ordinance the authority to appoint and remove the heads of the police and fire departments to the city's civil service commission.
- City managers in cities having a city manager form of government shall have the power to appoint and remove all department heads. In cities with a city manager form of government and with civil service commissions, the civil service commission shall have the power to override the city manager's appointment or removal of the police or fire chief by a majority vote of the total membership of the commission.
- The provisions of this section shall not apply to department heads not under the control of the governing body of the city and shall not apply to cities having a city administrator form of government.
History. Acts 1981, No. 795, §§ 1, 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 19-1013.1; Acts 1995, No. 534, § 1; 1995, No. 914, § 1.
Case Notes
Applicability.
The 1995 amendment to this section applies to persons terminated after its amendment, including those hired before its amendment. Sykes v. City of Gentry, 114 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 1997).
Interest in Employment.
Although police chief was hired before 1995, his property interest in his position was eliminated in 1995 when the General Assembly amended this section. Sykes v. City of Gentry, 114 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 1997).
Prior to the amendment of this section in 1995, §§ 14-43-504(e)(2) and former § 14-43-505 created a property interest for a police chief in the position. Sykes v. City of Gentry, 114 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 1997).
Police chief did not show a due process violation when the chief was summarily terminated by the mayor because this section did not give the chief a right to a hearing before city council. Sullivan v. Coney, 2013 Ark. 222, 427 S.W.3d 682 (2013).
Cited: Weaver v. Collins, 2010 Ark. App. 707, 379 S.W.3d 582 (2010).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: Sullivan v. Coney, 427 S.W.3d 682 (Ark. 2013).
Sullivan v. Coney, 427 S.W.3d 682 (Ark. 2013). “Although Coney argued that Ark.Code Ann. § 14-42-110 (Repl. 1998) granted her the right to have a hearing before the city council to determine whether the council should override | ¿the Mayor’s decision to terminate her, Sullivan correctly notes that this section does not confer…”
Byron Sartor v. Mayor Tony Cole, Individually & in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Huttig & the City of Huttig, 2023 Ark. App. 131 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). “On July 20, the United States District Court ruled that Sartor did not have a property right in his employment as a result of the enactment of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 , and, therefore, he had no right to due process in regard to his termination.”
Byron Sartor v. Mayor Tony Cole, Individually & in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Huttig & the City of Huttig, 2023 Ark. App. 131 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). “On July 20, the United States District Court ruled that Sartor did not have a property right in his employment as a result of the enactment of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 , and, therefore, he had no right to due process in regard to his termination.”
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff, 935 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2019). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 (a)(1). Six members of the Council voted to reinstate Ridgell and two voted to uphold the mayor's decision.”
Stitz v. City of Eureka Springs, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (W.D. Ark. 1998). “See Ark.Code Ann. § 14-42-110(a)(l) (Repl.1998).”
Bugg v. Stachey (W.D. Ark. 2019). “In the pleadings filed in support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants cite to Ark. Code Ann. §14-42-110 (b) as authority for their power to act in this case: “City managers in cities having a city manager form of government shall have the power to appoint and remove…”
Bugg v. Stachey (W.D. Ark. 2019). “In the pleadings filed in support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants cite to Ark. Code Ann. §14-42-110 (b) as authority for their power to act in this case: “City managers in cities having a city manager form of government shall have the power to appoint and remove…”
Weaver v. Collins, 379 S.W.3d 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 (a)(l). The City argues that Collins attempts to use the right of the mayor as his own right and that this statute does not create an entitlement of the employee to the department-head position.”
Leaphart v. Williamson, 850 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Ark. 2012). “1632 and Ark.Code Ann. § 14-42-110 (Repl.1998), the Mayor had the final authority to hire and fire department heads, such as the Director of Human Resources, subject to a two-thirds veto by the Council.”
First State Bank & Pinnacle Bank v. City of Elkins, 546 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2018). “(b) However, the authority to appoint and remove department heads, including the building official, shall be governed by § 14-42-110 regardless of the classification of the city or town.”
Green v. Hollowell (E.D. Ark. 2020). “§ 14-42-110(a)(1); Doc. 28-2. The council rejected Green’s appeal in June.”
Kirk D. Sykes v. City of Gentry, etc. (8th Cir. 1997). “On April 5, 1995, about two weeks after Sykes was hired, the Arkansas Legislature enacted Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 (Michie 1987 & Supp.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110(a)(1) — 3 cases
Byron Sartor v. Mayor Tony Cole, Individually & in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Huttig & the City of Huttig, 2023 Ark. App. 131 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). “On July 20, the United States District Court ruled that Sartor did not have a property right in his employment as a result of the enactment of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 , and, therefore, he had no right to due process in regard to his termination.”
Byron Sartor v. Mayor Tony Cole, Individually & in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Huttig & the City of Huttig, 2023 Ark. App. 131 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). “On July 20, the United States District Court ruled that Sartor did not have a property right in his employment as a result of the enactment of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110 , and, therefore, he had no right to due process in regard to his termination.”
Green v. Hollowell (E.D. Ark. 2020). “§ 14-42-110(a)(1); Doc. 28-2. The council rejected Green’s appeal in June.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 14-42-110(a)(l) — 1 case
Stitz v. City of Eureka Springs, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (W.D. Ark. 1998). “See Ark.Code Ann. § 14-42-110(a)(l) (Repl.1998).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.