Residents packed the city’s board meeting Tuesday night to speak their minds about recent tensions reported within the city.
One of the hottest topics brought up was the sexual harassment allegation made by a city employee against city administrator Charles Clark . Many citizens called for Clark to be fired because of the allegation.
After some go-around between members in the audience and board members, Alderman Robert Davis made a motion to terminate Clark.
However Alderman Larry Buschjost asked that the discussion and any other action on the motion be taken into closed session. There, Buschjost said, aldermen would feel more comfortable talking about such a sensitive topic.
Davis responded by saying he felt too much has already been kept behind closed doors.
“People want to know where the board stands,” Davis said. “It’s something that won’t happen if the board continues to hide behind closed doors.”
Davis said he was ready to make his decision now, in the open where the public would know where he stood on the issue.
“The city’s turmoil will stop if (Clark) is dismissed,” he added.
Board members did move further discussion into executive session. As of press time, no other information, including any further action on Davis’ motion, was available.
Later in the meeting, the allegations against Clark were brought up again when aldermen discussed an ordinance that would require the city’s police chief to report to the board of aldermen and mayor. The police chief currently reports to the city administrator.
Several people stated they thought the ordinance was drafted because of the investigation into Clark led by Police Chief Mark Maples.
It was noted that it put Maples in a difficult position when he had to investigate his own boss.
However, since the city administrator answers to the board of aldermen, several aldermen didn’t feel the transfer of power was necessary.
An outside agency, like the Missouri Highway Patrol, could have and should have been used to conduct the investigation, Alderman Jeff Van Donsel said.
Clark responded by saying that it was a step backward for the city to remove powers from his position and add them to the board.
Alderman Donald Langley wasn’t sure the ordinance was a move in the right direction either.
To terminate the chief of police already requires a majority vote of the board, which Langley considered protection.
Alderman Bill Bolin wasn’t sure he had enough interactions with the police chief to write job performance reviews, which would be required of the board.
Other aldermen saw Maples remaining under Clark as a hindrance to his position.
For all five votes needed to pass the ordinance – two votes each for the first and second readings and a vote for final passage – aldermen split 3-3, requiring the mayor to break each tie in favor of having the police chief answer to the board.
Buschjost, Davis and Judy Neels voted in favor of the ordinance, pushing it along by making the motions and seconds.
They even refused Bolin’s request to hold off having the second reading until the next board meeting so aldermen could consult with their own constituents to see what they wanted.
Van Donsel, Langley and Bolin voted no.
The next ordinance up for discussion on the agenda, an amendment that includes and adds “city employee” to the conflicts of interest policy, also stirred intense debate and discussion among city officials.
Once again, discussion of the ordinance centered around Clark.
Van Donsel said the ordinance was a waste of the city’s time because employees cannot approve or deny city policy.
City attorney Jay Harms disagreed. He brought up the example of a city inspector communicating and providing information outside the realm of the application.
Harms wants that information to be disclosed, especially if that information is being used to change city policy.
Van Donsel was concerned that the ordinance would be taken far outside its scope when certain city positions have the responsibility to help people fill out applications.
“Without meeting with city staff, the application wouldn’t get (to the board of aldermen),” Clark pointed out. “It wouldn’t be fair for all city employees to disclose every conversation.”
Clark did say that it was an employee’s “due diligence” to make sure that they were open and honest.
The ordinance was tabled until aldermen could review it further.
Contact this reporter at deanna.wheeler
@lakesunonline.com
Lake Ozark, Mo. —
