By Pauline Masson –
On Tuesday evening the newly organized board of aldermen will see three bills that can change the balance of power during board of aldermen meetings.
If the language, crafted by City Attorney Bob Jones, does what they want it to do aldermen will complete the first reading – give preliminary approval – to the new bills.
Once approved with a second reading, the ordinances authorize the board of aldermen to discuss upcoming legislation during the first reading of a bill; add items to the board meeting agenda prior to meetings; and select liaisons to serve on boards, commissions and committees.
Up to now the mayor has claimed the authority to make all committee appointments and control the agenda. And new aldermen were instructed to refrain from discussion a proposed law at the time of the first reading.
After a year of acquiescing to instruction from City Attorney Bob Jones, City Administrator Steve Roth and Mayor Heather Filley, the current board stepped up its game. Scott Lesh, acting president of the board of alermen, drafted three new bills that restructure the board meetings and introduced them at the May 16 board meeting.
The full board voted to ask the city attorney to write the proposed ordinances and bring them to the June 6 board meeting.
On the surface these bills may not look huge. But for citizens, they represent a giant step in the current board’s promise to keep the public informed of all city business.
The first bill, 5200 – titled Amending the Procedure to Enact New Ordinances – says The Board of Aldermen has determined that a brief explanation of a proposed Bill shall be stated by the Sponsor or the Mayor after a first reading and that discussion is permitted and encouraged.
Aldermen, who were elected in April 2022 were told they should not ask questions or make comments when a new bill was read by title only as a new bill. To some observers this was a deliberate method to keep the details of upcoming board action from the public.
In my 30 years as a reporter here, the first reading of each bill was the meeting where the new law was introduced, explained, defended and/or criticized. These discussions were routinely reported in the local newspaper, which gave residents the opportunity to study the proposed law and its possible impact on the city and their individual lives.
City Attorney Bob Jones, who serves a city attorney in several St.Louis County cities and is a former mayor of the City of Ballwin changed that. He said it was not necessary for an alderman to make a motion to complete the first reading and because there was no motion, the first reading was not the right time for aldermen to discuss the bill.
Newly elected aldermen, who followed these instructions, found themselves under criticism by long time meeting observers and local pundits. After a bit of research they determined to returned to the practice of revealing the language and intent of a new bill on the first reading.
In explaining the need for an ordinance, Lesh said the board had managed to come full circle on the issue of discussing a law but the ordinance was requested so that no board in the future would be prohibited from having a discussion on first reading.
The second bill, 5201, that aldermen will see Tuesday evening includes individual aldermen in the creation of the meeting agenda. Lesh said an ordinance was needed to include aldermen in the process. He said in the past he and other aldermen had requested that items be added to the agenda but they did not show up. The new bill states that upon request from an alderman an item shall be added to the tentative agenda.
He wanted a specific agenda item for any matter an alderman wanted to discuss to be included in the board packet that is distributed four days ahead of the meeting so that other aldermen and citizens who read the board packets would know the discussion incoming up.
The third bill is more nuanced, but is also an important step in citizen participation.
Bill 5202 states that Alderman Liaisons to city boards, commissions and committees will be selected by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board of Aldermen.
In the past the mayor has made the selection and appointed individuals to these committees.
One alderman said involving six individuals in the selection process, instead of having one individual making the decision, opened the selection up to a wider range of citizens.
The new bill also says the alderman liaison is not a member of the committee and therefore will not have voting privilege nor satisfy quorum requirements.
This clause was important because aldermen worried that by voting on matters at the committee level to bring a recommendation to the full board then voting as an aldermen when the measure was acted on, gave the liaison two votes and an undue influence on the matter.
All three bills are included on Tuesday’s agenda and are introduced for a first reading (preliminary approval).
I have to imagine the city attorney would have rather been waterboarded than to write those bills up for the BOA. It’s been a while since I’ve been visited by the warm embrace of schadenfreude. Magnificent to see you again, old friend.
Well done, BOA – especially Aldermen Cleve and Lesh.
I believe that all of us has, within ourselves, the ability to lead. Yet in almost all of us, that notion is pushed aside rather than embraced and developed — because to do so is hard. It comes with costs that, frankly, most of us just aren’t willing to pay. For most of us the thought of ocassionally stepping out of our “comfort zone” even for a few moments, sounds very unpleasant. To push yourself to grow as a leader means setting up permanent camp there, come hell or high water.
That we are seeing this type of leadership growth from multiple “new” alderman is almost certainly a harbinger of great things to come for the citizens of Pacific.
Sorry Nick Cozby it autocorrected your name. on my comment! Lol
The three new bills are needed. And I agree with Mr Cosby that the attorney would rather have been waterboarded. And you can tell Mr Roth displeasure by reading his letter in the agenda for this weeks meeting. He brings up many scenarios of why alderman shouldn’t be able to put items on the agenda. One being they may put something the Mayor doesn’t like, that could be one of the reasons for this Bill. If the Mayor doesn’t like it, of course it won’t go on. And then will the alderman give a summary? I’m sure if they believe in it enough to want it on the agenda, they will write a summary for you.
Then down further in Roths little tirade, he talks about the PNZ alderman liaison has to be nominated, but since they don’t have voting power and no voting power, it might as well take it off the table and remove it from the agenda.
My first thought was if this is making Mr Roth and Attorney Jones unhappy. The board is doing something right.
You nailed it, Karla. Seeing and hearing their level of condescending disdain to these proposals – common sense changes which clearly are in alignment with the core tenets of the US Consitution – was a clear indicator that the ‘new’ BoA is on the right path forward.
The intent of these bills is to limit the ‘ rubber stamp agenda’ proposed by the administration, and thus, return some power and input to the citizens.
If the City staff doesn’t like I am pretty much for it.