Tonight's meeting was interesting.
I believe the CM, Doug Russell, submitted his resignation.
They went into executive session (private meeting) before getting to business at hand, for about 20 minutes. Anticipating the CMs resignation, I was not surprised at that.
Doug was there when they went into their private meeting.
When they came back out into open session, Doug was nowhere to be seen.
Chief of Administration Steve Archer was sitting where Doug normally sits, and he seemed to take the role of a city manager.
Near the end of the meeting they had another private meeting. Archer called for it, for a non elected personnel matter - which is legal. A couple of the other commissioners also said they needed short executive sessions.
When they allowed the public - me - back in, they were already discussing the Vinelife Church.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist - or even a republican - to figure out that Vinelife Church is not an employee of the city. It is a building owned by the city and should not have been discussed in executive session. They were in the middle of discussing it when the meeting again became public.
After the meeting, and waiting out another executive session, I tried asking about the city manager situation and got such a runaround that I didn't even ask about the church.
It was a simple question. And one that should have been expected.
Where is Doug?
At first they tried to completely avoid the question about where Doug was.
Dotty Smith jokingly asked who was that?
Mayor Mell Kuhn said "come back tomorrow night and see."
Based on talking with Patrick McDonald and Steve Archer, I gathered that Doug did in fact resign as expected. Archer would be the normal fill-in.
Doug us going to be with the city as an advisor for 30 days, the term of his notice period.
The CM obviously had left the building. Simple answer was that they accepted his resignation and asked Archer to fill in until they make a decision about what to do. They had talked about Russell's resignation in the executive session - i suppose - and that was fine.
What I don't know is why they were trying to avoid questions so much.
I try to report the news. When public officials stonewall I'll report that too.
Often their refusal to answer questions is a better story anyway.
They did say they would tell us tomorrow night at their regular meeting.
Joel Hockenbury gave the most reasonable response. He said simply that they talked about it in the private meeting and had not made a decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
IT is a shame. I really didnt know Mr. Russell,but what I did read about him, I liked. I wish him the best. I just hope that he doesnt think all of Ark City, are made of the same cloth, as Mel and Dottie. It is sickening to even have to look at either one of them, after reading their remarks from the commission meeting. And to think, that they claim to be christians!!
Thanks for reporting the stonewalling, and not just that they didn't discuss it. It seems like they are playing games.
You go James! Who's city is this exactly? I think some people have forgotten that it's OURS and they wouldn't be there if it weren't for us. It's time for a change- All this passing around the mayor and commisssion jobs through the SAME people is sickening. Enough is enough! We need new people and fresh ideas- Someone that is wanting to make a difference for our city for OUR city... Not to suit them and their pockets! Arrgggghhhhhh!
Since the Traveler Editor was present and "obviously" observed violations of the "Open Meetings" Act, why doesn't the Traveler take the lead and file a complaint with the Attorney Generals Office. It does appear the time has come for the "Commissioners" to be reminded of their duties and responsibilitys. [Awaiting the Travelers response]
For elected officials the city cannot withhold any information. But for employees, as with any business, personal information cannot be released. Furthermore, if the commission was in executive session it would be illegal for them to make a decision.
Maybe, because the city manager is an EMPLOYEE not an elected official and since this is the first time the commission has met (at least all 5 together) they had questions that could not be answered immediately.
I am not defending the commission, but I do know what it is like dealing with employees. If it is like business they will have to have another private talk, then most (probably not all) of the information can be disclosed.
Yeah James, thanks for letting us know. Hope you can report that in tonights newspaper too. Hey maybe Patrick will have something to say soon, since he is the only one with the guts to come in here and sign his name.
The problem was not the executive sessions.
Maybe they just started talking about other things a bit too early, but thats not such a big deal.
The problem, as I saw it, was how they were acting after the executive session.
And as I always point out, no one ever "has to" go into executive session, and they may talk about what they talked about if they wish.
There are times when it is probably best to do things in a private meeting. I just thought it was strange how the CM disappeared and they wouldn't give much of an explanation.
May the CM disappeared so he wouldn't have to answer any questions. You could be making too big of a deal out of nothing. Perhaps that was HIS choice and not the choice of the commission.
I must admit too. If I was in Mr. Russell's shoes, and it were up to me, I would get out of there as soon as I possibly could.
Last poster is probably right. Let's not read too much into it, yet.
I'm still waiting for all the commission apologists to show up here and start whining.
James,
Sometimes we "have to" go into executive session because we are talking about things out of control of the city.
If we are talking about an employee, the city nor the citizens have any right to make their life public. It not only might cause problems with citizens, but might also disrupt other employees.
Another instance would be "matters of third party financial". If a business asks to keep their financial activity a secret it must be respected. Unless it is a publicly traded company a third party investor, developer, or other business does not have to answer to the public to negotiate. Once a deal is made with the city involved then it must go public.
Another reason would be attorney client privelege. Like any other entity various things from negotiation to strategy must be kept quiet or you give up most of your position. But, at some point it must become public, usually just before, or as action is being taken.
These items aren't meant to keep secrets, but to protect the individuals or entities the city is dealing with. There are very specific guidelines for executive sessions, that is why the city attorney almost always participates, except during non-elected personnel.
I hope this clears some up. If anyone has any question they are welcome to email me at pmcdonald2005@sbcglobal.net
Patrick McDonald
then why be so smug when ask the question where is doug? they have no right to act like that , actions speak louder than words , and there actions spoke volumes about what they thought
THanks Patrick
I did say that there are times when it is best to go to executive session. I agree with that.
I was just saying that there is no legal requirement to do so.
Also, another poster may be right, maybe we shouldn't read too much into this.
Im not saying its the end of the world or anything. I just thought it needed to be made public.
They didn't do anything illegal last night. I just hope it doesn't deteriorate from here.
Guess we will see tonight.
"And to think, that they claim to be Christians!!"
I am not sure of whiom you refer to as having make that claim.
I think one can make such a claim and make mistakes, err in judgment, willfully do wrong or just have the misfortune of making an unpopular public decision.
The foundation of Christiandom is that one continuously seeks to be harmonious with the teachings of Christ and, in the event that self assessment (or the counsel of a trusted friend or spiritual leader) highlights inconsistencies, one seeks redemption through Christ.
The Christian's goal is to be found blameless but there are days when we come up short (we were Biblically forewarned of as much).
Be nice about their faith, please. Maybe yours will be scrutinized next.
Be nice about their faith, please. Maybe yours will be scrutinized next.
Thx. Charles. Well stated.
Perhaps we should all pause and say a prayer for our city and our community.
A deep breath of fresh air would help.
amen
thanks charles
Ok, this is waaaay off subject, but...
JJ, I was wondering if you were printing names of parents in criminal cases committed by minors. I know you had mentioned it earlier in this blog. I thought it was a great idea. We have had a few more incidents of late which would qualify. Any luck? I do not get the printed paper, so I was not sure.
Any luck? I do not get the printed paper, so I was not sure.
No luck yet
its going to take some time, not even sure if i can.
you should get the printed paper though...
you'd get to see the mistakes i make :)
Patrick,
I'm curious... do you ever show up at meetings and feel like you missed one? Are there ever instances where it is obvious that three of the commissioners have previously discussed something without you or joel?
I know you will try to be diplomatic, but please be honest. Have you ever felt out of the loop?
sg
I do apoligize, if I offened anyone, on my earlier comment about their claim to christianity. I ofter get red-faced about ones hypocrytical actions. Remember a picture in the Traveler, on the National Day of Prayer, at Wilson Park. A former commissioner, was in said picture(of course with his company shirt on!) professing his devout beliefs?
Didn't people come from, or on their way, to work.
Duh. I have no idea of which former city commissioner you are speaking of anyway.
Does wearing a company shirt make your Christianity invalid? I'm curious... ;(
yes, please chill out.
Post a Comment