Faith In Government: Council Q & A Session

SIDNEY – A lengthy question and answer session Tuesday night at the Sidney City Council meeting ended with one councilman saying he’ll never do business with the City of Sidney again. The session was requested by resident Julie Young, who asked questions regarding the open meetings act, public records, council interference with city personnel and money received by any business owned by a council member.

The open meetings question took the longest to answer, and boiled down to a point of faith in government and council obeying open meetings law, according to Young.

“I want open meetings to be open,” Young said.

Young questioned some closed sessions council entered into last year, including one May 12 in which a councilman suggested naming a second attorney in case a conflict of interest arose with the city attorney, or if council wanted a second opinion. Young asked if that attorney was named and voted on in closed session to which Councilman Bob VanVleet said he didn’t think so.

Through discussion, it was learned that City Attorney Jordan Ball thought the agenda item was to discuss his performance, and he didn’t ask for it be in closed session.

“Since I’m so wound up in the middle of this, that’s all I’m saying,” Ball said.
Young insisted to council that it cannot name a second legal counsel without having a reason to do so such as pending litigation. VanVleet said the council didn’t try to do anything illegal, as Ball was present during the open meeting.

Young further questioned a second closed session council entered on May 26 listed as one to discuss personnel. Ball said he was given no advisement on the issue, and assumed it was once again about his position. Councilman Marvin Filsinger said council looks to Ball to ensure it’s following proper procedure and following laws. Ball said normally he is advised of agenda items and would write out the motion, but in this one instance he wasn’t informed.

Young questioned council if City Manager Gary Person knew what that second closed session was about, if it was made clear in the minutes what the session was for and wondered if Person had been allowed the opportunity to choose a closed session meeting. Person said he was made aware that it was a personnel issue with him by the mayor.

Young’s husband, Dave, told council the open meetings law pointed out at the start of every meeting outlines exactly what council must do. He said council expects the public to follow laws, and the citizens expect council to follow them too.

“I can’t remodel my house and use ignorance of the law as an excuse for not getting a permit,” Dave Young said. “I can’t drive 70 mph down the street and claim I just didn’t understand the laws. To me, if you’re on a public board, that’s one of the key pieces of legislation that you should really understand.”

Filsinger said his position was firm in that council looks to Ball for guidance and if something was wrong, council was not notified. Ball said he would accept that in most cases, but not in this case because he wasn’t advised of anything.

“It was not a good month for me,” Ball told Young.

Councilman Dalan Hiett said going forward, council should ensure it discusses closed sessions with Ball to make sure everything is in order and get the legal advice he can provide.

“I’m not a fan of closed sessions anyway,” Hiett said. “It leads to situations just like this, there is mistrust. There are certain circumstances, but when those certain circumstances arise, I think we have a responsibility if Jordan doesn’t come to us, if we’re bringing it up, that we need to go to Jordan and say this is what I’m doing. I want to make sure I’m doing it correctly.”

VanVleet then questioned Young about why it took her a year to bring this issue up.

“We failed in our duty as citizens to be here and hold you accountable for what you’re supposed to do,” Young said. “And I personally hold myself responsible for that. I should’ve been here and I should’ve held it sooner.”

Young added that on Jan. 26, Mayor David Weiderspon worded a statement in a way that concerned her. Young believed the statement was worded in way that could have suggested a meeting on reconstruction proposals prior to bringing any proposal to an open meeting.

The mayor said Tuesday there were not any proposals at the moment, but said they would be taken to Ball, put on an agenda and discussed in a public meeting.

A final point on the  open meetings issue raised by Young addressed a January 2009 meeting that took place when all council members appeared in the same place at the same time to look at a pickup truck. This was addressed due to VanVleet’s statement at the last January council meeting in which he said he would never be in the same building as five council members at the same time.

VanVleet compared the meeting to being in a restaurant without discussing any business.

“We discussed a pickup,” VanVleet said. “Whether it needed a tire or not. File your charges.”

•••••

The next question raised by Young dealt with public records and bled over into the third question on the agenda dealing with council interference with city personnel.

According to Young, during the Jan. 26 meeting, a city employee stood up and said he worried about retribution. Young claims that on Jan. 27, Ball was contacted by a city councilman who requested the employee’s personnel file. Young said she thought it was an act of retribution.

The employee was later revealed to be Mike Palmer, who attended Tuesday night’s meeting. Palmer asked council directly why his personnel file had been pulled to which VanVleet responded that he asked how a job was created, that he never saw a paper and didn’t ask for a personnel file.

Prior to Palmer’s question, Young told council that city employee’s who might like to speak at council meetings are scared to do so because a personnel file was pulled the day after the council meeting in which Palmer spoke. Young said Michael Rowland also asked for the file, and Rowland defended saying he asked for a job description by going through the appropriate city staff.

“I have no axe to grind with that employee or any other employee,” Rowland said.

Mayor Weiderspon asked what a council member would do with an employee file, because it is up the to city manager to hire and fire city employees.

“So why would any city employee be worried about speaking here if the only person to answer to is the city manager?” Weiderspon asked.

Person said a question had been brought up about how a crew chief position came to be in the electrical department, which had to do with a lot of turnover in the department due to its need of highly-skilled individuals.

Young said she perceived that as retribution, and it was due to the timing of the request following the meeting.

•••••

The fourth question brought to the table by Young dealt with money received by any business owned by any council member. Young started off saying that Hiett and Councilman Wendall Gaston have been compensated for travel expenses, and do not own their own business. The other three council members are self-employed, and of them, Mayor Weiderspon was the only one with an up-to-date disclosure statement filed with the city.
“I feel good,” Weiderspon said.

Young said VanVleet’s disclosure statement with the city was last filed in 1993, and suggested he should update it. Young said a disclosure statement is for any monies received by a council man doing business with the city.

VanVleet said he’s been selling iron to the city since the 1970’s, and Young said he only needed the disclosure statement while he was serving on council. VanVleet said he found out about needing the disclosure statement at 8:40 a.m. Tuesday morning from the city attorney.

“How the hell am I supposed to know?” VanVleet asked.

Ball said statutes of accountability changed during the time in which VanVleet was not on council. A discussion was held in 2007 on the law with council, and VanVleet was re-elected to council after that discussion had taken place.

“He had missed that whole presentation and discussion that we had,” Ball said.

Ball said when he discovered the question had come up, he spoke with City Clerk Geri Anthony and requested that she provide the disclosure statement. Anthony wasn’t in the office on Friday and on Monday, Ball said he was unable to check with her. On Tuesday morning when the statement was available, Ball called VanVleet and Filsinger to suggest that if there was a vendor situation, they might want to fill out the form.

“Yes, the form should have been on file earlier, prior to any action,” Ball said. “I’m trying to assist Bob in getting that form done, and it may already be done. You’re right to raise it, and we’re trying to react to it.”

Young also addressed an issue with Filsinger submitting a bill for more than $17,000 to fix a drainage issue on the property where FedEx currently sits in the Interstate 80 business district. She said she was told that Filsinger offered to do the job for free, and there was no disclosure statement on the project or made in that meeting.

“The project was brought forth and they had an engineer come to correct a drainage problem,” Filsinger said. “His quote to fix the drainage was around $450,000. At that time, council said we don’t feel there is any way the property would return any money to fix that problem.

“A couple days later, I had the individual with the project come and want to know if I could meet with him and Gary and John out at the site,” he said. “We walked around and looked at the problem. I came up with an idea. I think that for $40,000 that we can fix this thing and I would be glad to donate my time. That invoice reflected nothing of my time.”

Filsinger said he charged for equipment, people and materials that went into the job. He said Person knew of the project and has the authority to let a project under $20,000 go without bidding as done in the past.

Young said she appreciates the time that Filsinger donates to the city, but said her purpose was to bring issues such as this to council attention so that laws are followed and public doesn’t perceive the council as “being up to something.”

Filsinger said he goes back to saying council has legal counsel sitting there.
“I mean, did they set me up for a fall?” Filsinger said.

Ball said he knew nothing of any payment or anything referencing work done at the site.

VanVleet began to discuss the three claims he filed with the city up for approval at Tuesday night’s meeting and declared that he would not do business with the city again.

“I’m going to make it real simple for you because this is the last claim I’m ever putting into the city,” he said. “From now on, I’m not going to do any business with the City of Sidney. It’s going in my windows. We do not do business with the City of Sidney. It’s too much trouble.”

VanVleet said the trouble stems from being “accused of stuff we shouldn’t be accused of.”

Young said she wasn’t accusing council of anything.

Dave Young said he and his wife don’t believe any council member ran for council with bad intent, and they weren’t there to accuse anyone of anything. He said he was requesting more openness at meetings so citizens can have the opportunity to participate in the formation of public policy.

Following Dave was Jo Houser, who spoke as a citizen and a city employee. Houser said she had been with the city for 20 years and doesn’t believe her integrity was challenged until recently regarding her position in human resources, her salary and her son – Palmer – who also works for the city.

Houser said she had nothing to do with her son’s hiring, promotions or raises.

“I don’t feel that my integrity or my son’s integrity should be questioned,” Houser said.