Action of this month’s city council drastically changed city business as it has been known for more than 20 years. Councilpersons Jo Gwen Phillips brought back to the council a  motion that carried on from the February meeting that would place a $1,000 spending limit on the Mayor’s check authority.  Barbara Hortaver, Jo Gwen Phillips, Jerry Satterwhite, Sheila Dickson each voted in favor of the new ordinance though neither could provide any substantive reason for implementing the motion. Phillips stated the tight budget warranted a spending limit though it is unclear how a $2,000 check approved by the city council affects the budget differently than a $2,000 check approved by the Mayor. Dickson said “The materials and stuff for the estimates of the roof was what prompted it.” Dickson  is referring to the roofing estimate that the Mayor approved for the repair of the library and city hall. The previous contractor completed work to this same roof section on at least three occasions and his invoices also did not itemize materials used in the repair. It is also worth noting the Mayor since installation into office has made three independent finance decisions totaling less than $6000. One was related to the Chief of Police bonus, totaling $2,000 and the other two were related to the roof repairs, one at $1,500 and the other at $2,000. In each instance, the Mayor provided the council immediate notice, even ahead of the council meeting, of her actions. 

The members voted for the motion despite hearing from the City’s attorney that sections within ordinance, as written, were seemingly contradictory. The Mayor, the attorney and other members of the council suggested tabling the item for later discussion but the proponents of this motion insisted on voting. The Mayor had previously noted her intent to veto the motion but resolved at the March meeting to set aside her objections and instead allow the council to “feel the pain of their actions.” As the meeting carried out, discussions on the council made it abundantly clear the actions of the council were baseless, retaliatory and not well thought out. They did not consider how this motion, which appeared to come about apparent retaliation of the Mayor’s decision to independently select and hire a qualified and cost reasonable roofer to fix City properties. Dickson’s earlier comments solidified this notion. 

Immediately, following the vote, the street supervisor raised a concern how this would affect his department. He said supply orders often run into thousands of dollars. The Mayor advised that such purchases/orders could not be made without first obtaining permission from the city council. Realizing their actions were mostly punitive to the city department and their ability to conduct business and provide services, some of the same members who voted for the motion asked how they could change it. The attorney advised the motion has passed and upon publication in the paper it would go into effect. Council member Anthony Sterling advised this is the discussion he asked to have before rushing to read and vote on the motion but it is too late now. The Mayor advised the Recorder to ensure that notices were provided to the newspaper so this could be implemented soon. Read ordinance 2024-4.

Dickson also wanted to add a travel expense policy to the employee handbook. The handbook had been published four years ago and it was noted an expense policy should be added. Ironically, it was only after the Mayor submitted travel receipts, that Dickson found it necessary to review the expense policy. 

As these discussions were had and the cascading effect of the motion was understood, a scan of the audience faces showed confusion and disappointment. View the meeting in its entirety here. 5GNews will follow the actions of the council and bring back updates on how this affects the city in the coming weeks.