By: Lydia Crawley
The Parsons Advocate
The City of Parsons required a second motion to approve the agenda at the December 5th City Council meeting. Concerns regarding the contents of the agenda were raised that resulted in a failed first vote to approve the agenda and the subsequent split vote to augment the agenda to include everything but three disputed items. The second vote approved an amended agenda with a four to two vote.
Council Member Tim Turner raised objection to three items on the agenda citing his belief that they were incorrectly written and therefore could not be included on the agenda. “There’s a problem with our agenda,” Turner said. “Under five, ‘Unfinished Business,’ we talked about it at the last meeting, the third, fourth and fifth agenda items are not presented correctly. When we do the agenda, it has to say specifically what you are doing. It cannot have a whole list of things to choose from.”
Turner objected to the language in agenda items involving ongoing civic improvement projects spearheaded by Thrasher. The agenda items that were stricken were as follows:
*Consider and act upon any and all issues pertaining to the Parsons Emergency Water Preparedness and Resiliency Project including pay requisitions, change orders, adjustments to and/or recommendations from all professional services affiliated with said Project, including any and all professional services affiliated with said Project, including any and all changes and/or actions, signing of documents, necessary to continue said Project
*Consider and act upon any and all issues pertaining to the Sewer System Improvements Project including pay requisitions, change orders, adjustments to and/or recommendations form all professional services affiliated with said Project, including any and all changes and/or actions, signing of documents, necessary to continue said Project
*Consider and act upon any and all issues pertaining to the Water System Improvements Project including pay requisitions, change orders, adjustments to and/or recommendations from all professional services affiliated with said Project, including any and all changes and/or actions, signing of documents, necessary to continue said Project
Mayor Bruce Kolsun and Council Member Tim Auvil disputed the claim that the items were incorrectly written. “I had that written that way,” Auvil said. “I asked Aggie to put that on the agenda for these particular items because these are major projects and this I believe covers all the bases of what needs covered because there are times when it might just be a day or so prior to a meeting that something happens with one of these projects.”
Turner also said that the matter had been addressed by City Attorney Tim Stranko at the previous meeting. Council Members Melissa Jones and James Humphrey, Jr. also agreed that the matter had been addressed by the attorney previously. Stranko was unable to attend the meeting due to a prior engagement, according to City Administrator Agnes Arnold. “And the attorney addressed that at the last meeting,” Turner said. “And it is exactly what you are going to address in the meetings. So that when the public picks it up, they’ll know exactly what is going to be acted upon.”
Auvil said he felt that the items needed placed on the agenda due to the fact that time sensitive matters often arise when a project is under the construction phase. Turner stated that there were other ways to approach the matter should something arise needing immediate attention. There was a debate over a perception by Auvil that it would involve an emergency session of the Council. Turner said that the matter could be taken up by consensus vote with Arnold contacting each member individually for tentative approval with the matter being formally addressed at the following meeting. Jones said that should Auvil feel the items need a permanent placement on the agenda, the attorney said it could be addressed under Committee Reports.
The objection raised by Turner resulted in a debate among the council that resulted in a two to four vote to approve the agenda with Jones stating that after the discussion, she could not vote for the matter, a sentiment that was echoed by Humphrey and Council Member Kathy DiBacco. Council Members Tim Auvil and David Greenlief, Sr. were the only members to vote for approval of the agenda as presented. Turner made a further motion to only approve the agenda if the three disputed items were stricken from the agenda. The subsequent vote was passed four to two with Auvil and Greenlief voting against the motion.
The following statement on the Open Governmental Proceedings Act requirements was submitted to The Parsons Advocate by Parsons Mayor Bruce Kolsun and City Attorney Tim Stranko and are attributable to them exclusively.
OGPA Agenda Requirements
The Open Governmental Proceedings Act (W.Va. Code 6-9A-1, et seq.) requires that a meeting agenda be made available prior to meetings of a quorum of the governing body. While the Act does not establish how items must be listed on a meeting agenda, the Ethics Commission’s Committee on Open Governmental Proceedings has provided guidance on the required contents of an agenda.
To comply with the Act, language in the agenda must be sufficient to make the public aware of specific matters to be dealt with by the governing body. While generic terms such as “Old Business” or “New Business” or “Personnel Matters” may be used to categorize matters listed in the agenda, these are insufficient to provide notice of specific matters to be addressed by the body. Planned acts by the body must be listed on the agenda with specificity and detail adequate to provide the public and media useful notice of the Council deliberations and its prospective/contemplated action.
Invoices subject to payment approval by Council (over administrative approval threshold) may be listed under a general heading of “Approval of Invoices” if a list of the invoices to be considered by Council is available for public review prior to the meeting and attached to the meeting minutes.
The December 5 Council agenda complies with these guidelines, in that each of the five “Unfinished Business” entries and nine “New Business” entries are adequate to provide sufficient notice to the public of the contemplated acts by Council. While more detail may be included regarding project pay applications and committee appointments, the listed entries provide useful notice of Council action to be contemplated during the meeting.
Reference: Ethics Commission AO 2001-26, AO 2006-14, AO 2012-04
