36° F
4 By Will Pafford, Staff Writer
A public hearing to discuss Rollingwood requirements to serve on city boards and commissions is planned for the City Council’s meeting Wednesday.
Alderman John Hinton said he wanted to make the qualifications to serve on the city’s volunteer boards and commissions, which are filled by appointment by the Council, the same as those to serve as an alderman during the Rollingwood City Council meeting on June 17.
Currently, the city’s qualifications to serve on boards and commissions include being a resident for six months, not being convicted of a felony or class A or class B misdemeanor, not being an adversary in litigation against the city, not having a financial interest in litigation against the city and not being overdue in tax payments to the city.
The current ordinance does not apply to members of the Rollingwood Community Development Corporation, which has its own bylaws.
The requirements for serving on the City Council follow state law and require applicants to be 18 or older, a resident of the city for six months, not mentally incompetent and not convicted of a felony.
Hinton made a motion to erase the current qualifications to serve on city boards and commissions, replace the ordinance with the current requirements to serve on the City Council and require members of the RCDC to meet those same qualifications.
Mayor Dale Dingley said two members of the RCDC are not residents, City Administrator Vicky Rudy and builder Buzzy Woodworth, and they would be disqualified if Hinton’s motion passed.
City Attorney Monte Akers said the Council had the ability to amend the RCDC’s bylaws for membership, but an amendment to the ordinance that covers boards and commissions would not change the RCDC’s requirements because community development boards are not the same as other boards and commissions.
Alderman Brian Nalle said he could not imagine why the Council would want to appoint someone who is actively suing the city.
Hinton said the Council appoints members to boards and commissions, and the Council can remove members who are suing the city.
He said it does not make sense to hold volunteers to a higher standard than the Council, and that these standards have been used politically to block people from serving in the past.
Nalle said although the Council has the ability to remove people who are suing the city, it has not in the past because it is difficult to remove a neighbor from a board or commission.
“This Council has chickened out every time,” he said.
Nalle, Dingley and Alderwoman Roxanne McKee said the Council should have a public hearing before changing the ordinance.
“It feels like it’s being rushed through,” McKee said.
Simple question- who is it John Hinton wants to appoint who may have a background issue??
And, who is it he was trying to catch or possibly snare when he tried to make the ethical requirements for Commission members stricter??
Which way do you want it?? The requirements for Boards and Commssions are logical based on the fact the residents serving on these commissions make recs to the Council that have great impacts on our City. In an election all of these items would be brought out for City Council which would hurt someone’s campaign.
The question that should be asked is WHY was it so urgent to make the rules so much stricter for commission appointees just a few years ago? Why aren’t the rules being enforced for someone currrently on a commission who is NOT qualified under the rules he insiisted on pushing through? Why were the rules pushed through without question then? What was our council trying to do? Who were they after? Why are these rules seemingly being used to keep some people off of boards but not others who are favored by our blind mayor and city administrator? There are no “background issues’ that John Hinton is avoiding. John wants inclusive government by the people! Not by hypocrites.
What is wrong with ETHICS???? If there IS something to catch, we want it caught! If there is nothing, GREAT!
The argument against this is simply proof of our city’s contiinuing fight in support of corruption.
John Hinton needs to be left to do the job he received the most votes to do!
Our city administrator in would say that most people in Rollingwood are in a potential lawsuit with the city. Which means that most people in Rollingwood could not serve on a commission. That is just about how many people she has the city attorney “deal with” when they have a concern. Nice, isn’t it?
To Think About It????: The only things that come out in an election in Rollingwood are nasty attacks on good people. The final election results showed that most in Rollingwood know what is true and refuse to read or listen to awful personal attacks that are not pertinent to issues concerning our city. Let the people of our community serve and get rid of those who make serving such a negative experience. Then the council won’t be begging for anyone to serve on commissions as they have been for the past two years. We need change!