By: Lydia Crawley
The Parsons Advocate
Following the opening and closing of a public hearing earlier in the evening on the ordinance amending and reenacting the charter of the City of Parsons, City Attorney Tim Stranko addressed the City of Parsons Council during open session on the matter of the final reading and vote on the matter. “I would ask Mr. Lemons to enter into the record that we have received two objections to the Charter Amendment Ordinance that you have before you,” Stranko said.
Stranko said that legally, the Council could not take action on the measure as long as those objections were in force. “And accordingly, by law, you cannot act upon this charter amendment if there is an objection,” Stranko said.
Stranko laid out three options to the Council as to how they could proceed given the objections to the measure: they could amend the measure to satisfy the objectors, leave it and place it on the next ballot in 2026 or let it die. “We have a couple of options,” Stranko said. “We can amend the charter amendment to satisfy the objectors or we can leave it as it is and put it on the next municipal election as a voter referendum. The third option is just let it die and not do anything.”
The objections were housed in sections four and 30 of the ordinance, according to Stranko. “As I understand the objections are nested in sections four and 30,” Stranko said. “If you chose to go forward, one way to address the objections is to just delete section four and section 30 and leave section 30.1 in the charter amendment ordinance.”
The two objections to the ordinance came from Mayor Bruce Kolsun and his wife Cindy, Council Member Seth Rosenau said. Stranko said that was his understanding. “For the record, the objections come from Cyndi Kolsun and Bruce Kolsun,” Rosenau said.
Council Member Melissa Jones said it was her understanding that the Council was amending to better match State Code. “I was under the assumption that we were trying to get to where we matched the State Code and the changing that we made matched the State Code,” Jones said.
Stranko agreed with Jones, but said regardless, objections were received. “It did, Councilor, but we still got an objection,” Stranko said.
Council Member Tim Turner questioned whether an objection could be lodged against State Code. “Can you object to State Code?” Turner said. “If its a State Code how can you object to it?”
Stranko said there is no limit to what can be objected to. According to Stranko any citizen could object to anything in the document by law. “There is no qualification to an objection power,” Stranko said. “Any single citizen can object to anything with regards to charter amendments.”
City Recorder Rick Lemons read what sections specifically the objections were raised under. “Under number four, it strikes ‘and Mayor’ and then under 30, it says, ‘the Mayor may vote on an issue before Council only in the occasion of a tie vote of Councilors and to resolve said tie vote,’” Lemons said.
Jones said that the power to break a tie is currently a power the Mayor holds. “That’s what we go by now,” Jones said.
Council Member Seth Rosenau said that the Kolsuns objections stemmed from the language embroiled in the Mayor and his position in regards to the governing body. “Bruce and Cindy Kolsun want ‘and Mayor’ struck from the new ordinance where it says shall be the governing body, ” Rosenau said. “So if that’s struck, it will just say the Council shall be the governing body, which I’m fine with that.”
Jones said that the Council as the governing body is State Code and what was the original intent of the amendment, but the Kolsuns want the Mayor to be a part of the governing body. “And that’s State Code,” Jones said. “That’s what we wanted to change it to, to follow State Code. They’re going against that. They want the Mayor to be part of the governing body.”
Rosenau said it boiled down to a matter of semantics. “So if the wording, Mr. Stranko, sir, if the wording in that sentence says the governing body shall be the council and Mayor that literally changes no duties upon anybody at all?” Rosenau said. “Its just a wording issue is all we’re talking about?”
Jones asked Stranko if the wording would give the Mayor any additional power were they to adopt the language. “That does not give the Mayor any more power over the Council or anything because right now the Council is the final say,” Jones said. “So he will still not have a say unless Council has a say.”
A motion was made by Council Member Kathy DiBacco and a second by Seth Rosenau to adopt the 30.1 section of the charter as a new charter provision that establishes the duties of the City Manager. “The 30.1 what we are doing there is amending the ordinance to amend the charter to delete section four and section 30 and continue section 30.1,” Stranko said.
The changes to the charter amendment cleared any objection the Kolsuns had to the measure and paved the way for adoption of the measure under the law, according to Stranko.
“Basically, Mr. Kolsun, sir, everything you didn’t object to we’ll go ahead and approve,” Rosenau said. “And your objections we’re taking out.”
