By Pauline Masson
Eight months after being elected to the board of aldermen – and as the December 27 deadline for candidates to file to get their names on the April 2023 ballot looms – the two first term aldermen, who ran largely on a call for citizen participation, are still struggling to penetrate the closed ranks of the old guard.
The two first termers, who go out of their way to be polite on all issues, were shut down Tuesday evening on two issues that seemed impossible to lose.
James Cleeve wanted assurance that citizens could offer public comments at any and every city public meeting and Scott Lesh wanted the Pacific Partnership to report to the board of aldermen on how it spent the $50,000 a year of tax payer money it received for the past two years – a report that is required in the Partnership’s contract with the city.
Tackling their issues like old world sportsmen in an MMA match – bringing Marquis of Queensberry rules to a street fight – they were shut out on both issues.
The board acted to assure the junior aldermen that there will be no official requirement allowing citizens to speak at public city meetings and while the city administrator agreed to ‘ask’ the Partnership for the promised report, there will be no ordinance requiring him to ask or requiring the Partnership to submit it.
In both discussions, which took place in the City Officials Reports agenda item of the Dec. 6 board meeting, the novice aldermen argued their points well but the opposition got enough votes to shut them down.
Cleeve said he wanted to make a motion to allow public comments and public participation in any public city meeting.
He said at the board of aldermen meeting any resident can bring up anything they want. He wanted to make certain that at any other public meeting – operations, administrative, park board, or other – that there would also be a place for public comment.
“I just don’t ever want a public meeting where a resident can’t speak and have their ideas heard,” Cleeve said.
Ward Two alderman Jerry Eversmeyer, who chairs the Operations Committee, said he disagreed with the motion.
“The operations meeting is an information gathering meeting,” Eversmeyer said. “If there is something they (citizens) want to discuss they can submit it to one of the aldermen (who sits on the committee). Eversmeyer added that the chairmen of all committees and boards have the ability to allow public participation if they wish.
Cleeve said the right for citizens to speak should not be left to the committees.
“My whole goal here is that there should never be a meeting where a resident isn’t heard if they have something that pertains to the the issue,” Cleeve said.
Everysmery said allowing citizens to speak made the meetings too long.
“ I’ve been in meetings up here (at the board of aldermen) until midnight because of public participation,” he said.
Aldermen Rick Presley agreed with Eversmeyer saying there was a time and place for citizens to speak.
He said public participation can drag out meeting until nothing gets done. He said citizens could write a letter and submit it at the meeting and it can be discussed.
Alderman Sara Gendron said citizens can talk to aldermen at any time.
With Alderman Andy Nemeth absent, Cleeve’s motion was defeated 3-2 with he and Lesh voting yes and Gendron, Presley and Eversmeyer voting no.
Lesh’s request did not even get to a vote. He wanted to make a motion that the City request that the Pacific Partnership report to the board of aldermen on its activities. Lesh said he spoke with City Administrator Steve Roth about the issue December 5.
“He (Roth) said we’re two years into the three-year agreement,” Lesh said. “I asked if we had any reports on how the Partnership is going and he said no reports had been sumitted. I think the events are great and I’m interested in metrics and how they are doing.”
Lesh made a motion to get the report from the Partnership by February 2023, if possible.
The agreement between the City and the Partnerships says the city will compensate the Partnership $50,000 per calendar year for three years, with two year possible extentions – a total of $250,000 of taxpayer money – to conduct public events and partially pay the salary of the Partnership executive director.
The agreement stipulates that the Partnership shall provide regular reports to the City on its activities, on no less than a quarterly basis. The Partnership shall maintain complete records of its financial activities and shall provide the City with an accounting of all funds that are the subject of this agreement.
Lesh said the required reports had not been provided. The motion just made sure that it gets done by a specific time frame
Alderman Rick Presley said he didn’t think a motion directing the city administrator to submit a request was appropriate. He said the Partnership had made reports to the Tourism Commission. He said he saw Lesh’s motion as an unnecessary act.
Lesch tried again. “What’s in the agreement is that a quarterly report will be brought to the City,” he said. ”The agreement says the Partnership “shall” provide regular reports to the city, including reports of all financial activities. Mr. Roth said we have not gotten any of those to this point. We’re at the end of year two. And if there is no problem with that let’s just see them now.”
“We just need to ask them for them,” Gendron said
Cleeve said he would retract his second to the motion and asked administrator Roth if he would get the reports. Roth said yes.
Since the motion did not have a second, there was no vote.
What is distressing about these two issues is that the citizens have a need in both instances.
Citizens have a need to weigh in when elected city officials publicly discuss issues that affect them, regardless of where the discussion is being held. To suggest that the citizens can meet with an alderman privately, or write a letter and hope that their position will be given fair consideration in issues before city officials is a step back to the dark ages. Citizens need a public forum on issues that concern them.
And, in addition to Mr. Lesh – an elected alderman – citizens clearly need public disclosure of how the Pacific Partnership spends a quarter of a million dollars in taxpayer money to benefit the city. For the city administrator to say they have not submitted the report but he will ask them for it now, misses the point. Mr. Lesh asked for an ordinance to require report on a large sum that only the board of aldermen can approve. He want’s to know how the agreement is working.
On the point of citizens speaking at committee meetings, they say talk to your alderman. About what? Many of the resolutions and proposals that come up on the Boards agendas seem to come out of no ware. How are we able to talk with our aldermen if we don.t know what is going on in the back ground (secret sessions) discussions before these committee meetings. If we are forced to wait for a Board of Alderman meeting to come forth with our ideas we are basically being left out of the loop because the Alderman usually come from these Committee meeting with their minds made up. Don’t tell me these Board members don’t have discussions behind public view. If the meetings are to long is it because the subject matter is to controversial for a committee discussion or has the Chair lost control of the meeting.
On the matter of accountability of public funds, if the contract or agreement requires quarterly reports of activities and monthly financial statements, and these are not received in a timely manner it makes one wary of goings on or financial problems. If it is true that there has been little reporting in two years, the Administrator may be derelict in his duties to report the finances of the City. He should not have to ask for permission to require agreed to reports and financial statements. Could it be time to require an audit of the Partnership’s records?
Henry is right that most of this is discussed and minds are made up before the meetings. Just like the issue of the agreement with the partnership. Alderman Lesh had talked to Roth he said the day before. So the administrator was aware of a need for the records to be brought forth. Why didn’t he speak up in the meeting and say he was going to do that. And that a resolution enforcing getting those records would help enforce it.
If I remember the meetings correctly there has been things that had been asked to be presented at the next meeting and they didn’t appear. I will go back and check, but it is an ongoing problem.
But alderman cleeve backing down and saying I will retract my second, and then asking if Roth would bring them, he is missing the point all together.
And poor alderman Presley, he feels the need to protect administrator Roth. Any statement that comes up he is jumping to defend him. A lot of people wonder what that is about.
And Presley has presented misinformation before. But at the meeting he said other committees have been presented the required records from the partnership but I haven’t found them yet.
There is a lot of work to be done in this city. There is still some house cleaning needing finished.
Give it serious thought to signing up to run for alderman, so it can be an administration we can be proud of.
Karla, I’m not missing the point at all by retracting my 2nd. What you didn’t understand from my retraction were my thoughts on what was happening. There was no way a positive vote was going to take place for Mr. Lesh’s motion and so I chose to stop the back-and-forth discussions that were only continuing to make Mr. Lesh look bad. In my opinion, I put a stop to things and we WILL have the report from Mr. Roth, I will make sure of it (and I’m certain Mr. Lesh will as well). I’ve never asked Mr. Roth for anything that he hasn’t provided to me and I have no reason to believe otherwise now. If there haven’t been reports from the Partnership since the inception of the agreement, that’s a different story and a much bigger deal (that I also plan to follow-up on).
Unfortunately your perception is your reality. And other peoples’ perception is their reality. So we all have a different perception of who looked bad in the meeting!
Have a great day!
James, Good intentions are not good enough. Have you ever played poker? You need to play the cards that are dealt.
Scott Lesh was requesting something that he, as an alderman, and the citizens of Pacific had a right and a need to know.
Accordng to its contract with the City the Partnership was to receive quarterly payments – $50,000 a year; $250,000 in five years – and to make quarterly reports of how the funds were spent. Someone at city hall made sure that Partnership received its quarterly payments. For two years – $100,000. No one made sure the the Partnership made its quarterly reports.
Who was responsible for this at city hall? Who did not do their job?
Scott Lesh gave you an opportunity to get an important discussion in public, on the record.
I was dismayed at Rick Presley for saying Scott Lesh’ motion was an unnecessary act. And I was dismayed at you for retracting your second.
Rick Presley is not up there to tell Scott Lesh what he can request and you are not up there to make Scott Lesh look good. You and all the aldermen are up there to represent the ciizens.
Scott Lesh was the only one on that dias who was right on that particular issue. What happens to all of you when a simple request for information is made?
Why in heaven’s name could you not have asked a question – any question – to shed light on the issue instead of shutting everything down?
I’m sure that both you and Rick Presley are well intentioned. But what I see is that you are up there trying to look good – to look responsible – to be liked – instead of focusing your action on the needs of the citizens.
You are so right! And this meeting was indicative of the change that is needed in Pacific.
Mr Cleeve had been in the very same position as Mr Lesh earlier in the meeting.
What everybody that watches the meetings have learned is, no matter what they put forth the ones that have been on the board or on committees are going to say no!
And that simply is because it is change. It is enforcing things that are already in place, that the old guard has ignored.
This meeting as no other has shown that we need new faces on the board.
We need new people in Wards 1, 2 and 3.
We need people that will question Why,
We need new people that have the time to read and learn how things should be done instead of accepting the status quo.
Nemeth, Presley and Eversmeyer have all said at several meetings, I don’t have time to read that, that will make the meetings too long, or don’t we trust our administration?
They don’t seem to have time to do this job or to question what is presented to them.
So let’s have change this election like the last election!
Then Pauline you and I will disagree on this. All good with me. I do exactly what I was elected to do, in my opinion. More than most on the Board. The request is on record and Scott was heard. There was nothing to be gained by continuing the back and forth, again, in my opinion. As far as asking questions, it was the first I had heard of the issue. In the heat of the moment and with no time to really think about what is being discussed, I did what I thought was best. There are more meetings to bring the issue up again… everything didn’t need to be resolved at that moment. I agree we need the reports from the Partnership and need to follow the terms of the agreement. No question there at all. And we will (now that we know the terms).
I have failed at my “job” if you seriously believe I am doing things to look good, “look” responsible, and to be liked. If you knew me better, you would know if I’m liked, good, if not, so be it and I will sleep well tonight. This “job” takes a lot of my time (which I really don’t have) and I put a lot into it. I’m not doing this for the “power” (which there isn’t any) or the recognition… I care about neither. I saw a need and hoped that I could make a difference in the City I now call home. If that’s not enough for people, they know what to do if I decide to run for office again. As I’ve told a couple of people that believe we are missing things or not doing the job properly, please run for Alderman! The residents could use good people on the Board. Now is the time… you (and others) have until 12/27 to file to run. Right now, no one that has registered is opposed. No voting needed at this point, they will all be in. Residents need a choice and having ALL candidates running unopposed isn’t a choice.
Yes, We disagree. I don’t think you were elected to stop discussion on an issue as serious as how taxpayer funds are spent because you don’t want the back and forth. The back and forth is the main process of the board of aldermen meeting. Discussion in public in the official meeting of city officials is the place to do the city’s business, which is what the aldermen are elected to do. I don’t think you were elected to help other aldermen stop a fellow alderman from making a motion. You said, “We will get the report, I will make sure of that.” How are you going to do that- in the back room – out of sight of the citizens? The board of aldermen meeting was the place to do what ever it is you are going to do to make sure the report is made to the city.
Again, I want to stress, this was a simple request for information that was required by contract – is absolutely needed by both the city and the citizens – and somehow slipped through the cracks.
The city administrator refused to speak up in the meeting and explain how the report was missed and assert that he would contact the Partnership and make sure Partnerships knows that the aldermen want the report. Scott Lesh was trying to do the city’s business by requiring that the long overdue report (or reports) be brought forward. The only individual who looked good in this exchange was Scott Lesh. He was saying, “I like what the Partnership is doing, I just want to see the report.” How complicated is that?
Pauline,
The report was not going to be generated at the BOA meeting, so yes, of course the work will be done outside of the meeting. That’s how it works. We find something that needs to be done and then we do it outside of the meeting. Did I retract my second to hide something from residents? ABSOLUTELY NOT and if anyone actually believes that they’re way out of line. Discussions are held during the meetings, yes. If a discussion is going nowhere (of course that is subjective) during a meeting it needs to be stopped (and I will speak up in future meetings as well if I feel it is necessary) whether the discussion was started by me, Scott, or any other Alderman. The Mayor, as chair, should have stopped the discussion once it became a discussion going nowhere. As I have already said, Scott made his point and everyone heard it. It will be part of the permanent record (minutes). He had already talked to Steve Roth the day before and thus had made him aware of the missing reports (should Mr. Roth have already known and had something in place to make sure they were received? Yes).
I have already requested and received the signed agreement with the Partnership and now know exactly what the terms are (I did not prior to or during the meeting). With this knowledge, via email (which anyone can see via a Sunshine request – nothing in hiding) I have requested Steve Roth to provide the reports or get them from the Partnership if the City doesn’t already have them, as he has already said he would do. I will also address a way to ensure the reports are received as required going forward. I would assume Scott Lesh has already made the same request prior to me.
Let me also clear up another item that has been repeated multiple times in the comments at this point… I mis-spoke (or didn’t think through it enough) when I said “continuing to make Mr. Lesh look bad”. What I should have said was continuing to make the entire Board look bad. I know you believe everyone but Scott looked bad and that’s your opinion and I respect it. I am more “in line” with Mr. Lesh than any other Alderman, in my opinion (we all see this at almost every meeting). I have nothing against him and he and I agree on most issues. We do tend to handle issues a little differently and that’s ok… different personalities. I believe in the end, no matter how issues are handled, the end result will be that the issues are handled or addressed so people understand why something was done or not done. Only time will tell.
James, I did not think the report should or could be created during that meeting. I was dismayed that you stopped Scott from making his argument that he wanted a formal request from the board of aldermen to the Partnership to make the report as required in the contract. Someone was going to win and someone was going to lose there and you should have let that happen.
So If I understand you correctly – going forward you will stop discussions when you think they are going nowhere. This is especially disturbing.
I wrote myself a note after our last exchange because I wanted to assure you that I trust your integrity. Here’s what I wrote.
James, you keep defending your motives, saying if we just knew you better, we would see that you are doing everything right.
I trust your motives. I admire your intelligence. And I respect your standing in the community as a citizen who observed and participated in an issue where you thought the city got it wrong and decided to run for office to try to make things better. I do not write about you personally, or at least I have not up to now. I wrote about your action – or lack of action – in the city business meetings.
Local politics is tough. Most of the elected are all connected to each other in one way or another and when push comes to shove they tend to stand with their friends – right or wrong.
But now, I’m totally chagrined. If you are going to stop discussions because they don’t suit your sensibilities, or because you don’t see the possibility of a good outcome, we as a city are in real trouble. For our city government to function appropriately, the discussions need to play out to their actual conclusion, with each alderman being able to make his or her case – win or lose. The citizens need to know where aldermen stand on issues – not be limited to what James Cleeve thinks they should hear. You need to take a breath, here, and rethink this notion that only discussions that have the possibility of good outcomes will be allowed to progress. A good argument is the best form of government.
Missing eight quarterly reports and twenty four financial statements on the these amounts of money, tax payers and public funds, locks like negligence on two side of the agreement to me. Or may be there is something to hide, be it incompetence or out right theft . That is still to be determined.
This new Mayor ran on the platform that the City of Pacific needed “ change”. These yes people are cowards plain and simple. It takes courage to stand for integrity! These puppets are afraid of Roth! How did a City Administrator become the De Facto Mayor? By appeasement! This is a disgrace to the people of Pacific. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
The whole situation looks and appears like some one or every one up there was informed of a grave problem. Seems they are falling over each other to pretend ‘what , me worry’ , don’t blame me ‘I know nothing”. I have a distant memory of questions about Rodeo funds , and who gets what, from several years ago. Steev’e had a glowing report on the last Rodeo, where did he get his info ? somebody knows something and they are not happy.
James, in re-reading your last explanation of your actions on the missing Partnership reports, I want to put this in perspective of the public. You stopped Scott’s request for the city to take official action to ask for the neglected report or reports because you thought the discussion was going nowhere. And you vowed to do that again in the future. Then you took it on yourself to rectify the situation by emailing the Partnership – out of the sight of the public – and speaking for Who? the city? the board of aldermen? one alderman? to ask for the reports. Now that you have satisfied yourself that the report or reports will be forthcoming, from your perspective the citizens who want to know where the city stands on the missing reports can make a Sunshine request to get the details of your unilateral action.
Surely, you are aware that one alderman does not and cannot speak for the city, or enforce contracts between the city and other entities, no matter how well intentioned or determined – not privately, not in email, not even in the public meeting.
Your take on this, and one-sided, selective, action, is a whole new trajectory in back door maneuvering.
The place for the city to take official action on the missing reports was in the city business meeting, which is what Scott was trying to do.
I do think that either the mayor or city administrator would have the authority to ask for the reports without board action, which apparently they did not do – but not one alderman.
You have singlehandedly turned a request by a fellow alderman to make a motion seeking a bit of neglected information into an overblown debate on how the city does its business. And you are on the wrong side of the debate, arguing in your latest comments that – that’s how we do things. We find out what needs to be done and do it outside the meeting. And you noted the end justifies the means. You said. “I believe in the end, no matter how issues are handled, the end result will be that the issues are handled or addressed so people understand why something was done or not done.
Wrong!!!!!
City business should be handled in the city meeting.
And here is another thought on your attempts to defend your take on this issue, James – the computer showed that 40 people viewed the meeting where Scott’s failed attempt was made, and 740 people have logged on to read the report on the meeting and the comments about it. So regardless of where you go from here with this, it appears to me that the public is interested.
Someone smarter than me has told me numerous times not to get into debates online and at some point I really need to listen. Talk about an overblown discussion! This has become just that. And typed words are usually taken wrong or not as intended, and I know better, and yet here I am. I’ll stop now to avoid any further mistakes on my part.
I am happy to discuss this or anything else in person with anyone that wishes to discuss. There is nothing I want to hide from anyone. The exact opposite is what I always try to do.
Thanks, James. Fair conclusion to a thrice told tale.
James, it seems like you might benefit by looking back at what were your own “top priorities” when you decided to run for Alderman:
https://jamescleeve.com/#:~:text=Priorities,should%20make%20sense.
Remember the bold tenor and ambition you had when you made these promises to the electorate? Where has it gone?
Your words here, and actions in the BOA meetings are consistently focused minimizing any uncomfortable discussion or debate in the meetings. After all, why cause the meetings to take longer due to public discourse when you can much more easily resolve all the problems with private “follows ups” with Steve Roth or the goofball city attorney at some later date. Equally dismaying is that when any citizens dare challenge you to live up to your own stated priorities, your response has repeatedly been “If you can do better, run for Alderman!”. Silly.
Please, think back to the mindset and ambitions you had when running for Alderman and get yourself refocused and emboldened. You have the making of a great alderman, and folks clearly agree and elected you for good reason.