City Council Addresses Redactions and Ethics

By  | 

By Dave Freneaux

The Central City Council stood by its previous motion, allowing City Attorney Sheri Morris to provide legal bills and a sumary of potential litigation to Attorney Steven Stockstill.  The process had halted when Council Members LoBue and Washington expressed concerns to Ms. Morris over the selection of Mr. Stockstill to review the records.  Those concerns have now apparently been satisfied.  Mr. Stockstill has again been asked to redact any information that could put the City at a legal disadvantage and turn the records over to Mike Mannino prsuant to his public records request.  Mr. Stockstill has not reviewed all of the legal billing records, but stated that in the records he has reviewed he has seen nothing requiring redaction.
Council member Aaron Moak, following through with Mayor Watts' request for the establishment of ethics guidelines, submitted a resolution outlining how a committee could be formed to accomplish this.  After much heated discussion and a lack of consensus Council Member Louis DeJohn offered an alternate approach to the issue.  DeJohn moved to hold a City Council workshop open to all citizens as a first step in establishing ethics guidelines.  The motion passed 3-2 with Council Members DeJohn, LoBue and Moak in favor and Messina and Washington against.


  1. Kyle

    August 27, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Why are two council members against having an open workshop with citizen involvement to discuss ethics guidelines that they have to follow? What in the world is going on?

  2. Tim Lazaroe

    August 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    It makes me wonder if they were paying attention to the discussion Kyle!

  3. Paul

    August 27, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    Ask Wayne Messina. I’m sure he will be more than glad to tell you why he voted that way. He is an honest person and will let you know his reasoning, I’m sure.

  4. Laruelyn

    August 27, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Tim–were you at the same meeting I was at? From the discussion it was obvious that they were not “against” the idea of an open workshop–but they had both clearly expressed their desire to vote on and pass the original ordinance creating the ethics committee right then and there–they didn’t want the delay of deferring it, again (for a 3rd time!), to a workshop. Clearly the idea was to vote down the motion for the workshop so that they could then vote for the ordinance to create the ethics committee on Tuesday night. Just goes to show how “facts” can be misinterpreted, misrepresented, and misunderstood. If you were to ask either Mr. Messina (whom I spoke with via email yesterday) or Mr. Washington I believe they would both tell you exactly that–they are not against having an open workshop, they just wanted to vote then and there to create the ethics committee and avoid any further delay. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is what I gathered by what I heard and observed at the meeting, and from talking via email with Mr. Messina.

    • dave

      August 27, 2010 at 10:07 pm

      at chs game on iphone. unintended interprrtation i should have foreseen. already emailed council and mayor that i will clarify on site tonight and in print next week. called wayne. did not have ralphs number.

  5. Paul

    August 27, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Laruelyn – That makes perfect sense and happens all the time. In this case i don’t think the facts were “misinterpreted, misrepresented and misunderstood” They were simply “mis”sing.

  6. dave

    August 27, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Back at a keyboard. Being immersed in the Council meetings sometimes causes us to forget that not everyone sees the positions our Council has over a period of time. Everyone knows that Messina and Washington are in support of the formation of an ethics committee. Their “no” votes were an indication that they preferred to stay with the concept of an appointed committee and not try to accomplish this through a workshop. I am fairly confident that they will support whatever steps forward the council makes through a workshop.

  7. Kyle

    August 28, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Thank you for clearing this up, Dave. It is nice when an editor actually makes clarifications and corrections. I’m glad YOU do that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *