City manager questioned, mayor voices opinions

It was an evening of expression and debate during the Columbus City Council meeting Monday, Nov. 12 as Mayor Richard Heffley made personal comments on several agenda items and City Manager David Meisell was questioned about an Oct. 31 confrontation with a local citizen.

Following the usual agenda items, mayor Heffley began by letting audience members know he would be making comments on three items that he had personally requested be placed on the agenda. They included a Nov. 2 letter from citizen Edgar Clark in which Clark described a confrontation between himself and Meisell; Columbus Community Industrial Development Corporation grant funds which the mayor believed were not distributed appropriately and discrepancies with the Columbus Convention and Visitor's Bureau by-laws and term continuation clause.

"These are items that have been discussed a number of times. These are ones I wish to personally express my opinion on and as always value your opinion on the subjects," said Heffley. "To conclude, I tell you these three items have been of concern to me and I rightfully cannot continue without expressing my opinion on them."

Mayor Heffley proceeded; stating that he hoped differences could be resolved on the items.

First up was Clark's Nov. 2 letter, which was voluntarily provided to The Citizen by city officials. Meisell also noted during the meeting that The Citizen had received the letter along with other public documents relative to the meeting.

While letters from citizens, to the mayor are not uncommon, said Heffley, he said he chose to discuss Clark's letter in open session because it rose to a higher level.

"I do not want the public in any way to perceive that this is something we're trying to hide or there's a problem here with management or what have you," said Heffley.

In the letter, Clark claims that Meisell allegedly became irate when, at Heffley's Mill, Clark asked Meisell about the city's recent tree trimming, which Clark believed to be too severe. Later that day, Clark said he approached Meisell again while he was taking pictures of the tree trimming on the street in front of Clark's house.

In the letter, Clark stated that after several attempts to find out what Meisell "was so upset about," Meisell made the statement, 'you never attend any of our council meetings and then you write all of those lies in the paper.'

Clark states in his letter that Meisell is referring to a Sept. 28 "Letter to the Editor" in which Clark quoted comments made in the Sept. 5 edition of The Citizen. Clark continued on a variety of subjects regarding Meisell's actions, including that Meisell has put the city at odds with commissioners court, taken the passage of the GCD as his personal project and Clark also accused Meisell of displaying "rude conduct and intimidation tactics."

Following Heffley's introduction of the letter, Meisell was given an opportunity to explain Clark's comments. Meisell began by making it known he was also in favor of addressing the letter in open session.

He then proceeded, stating that during the initial contact with Clark he was standing outside Heffley's Mill with some "cowboys" when Clark approached him to complain about the city tree trimming.

"His specific complaint was about limbs he said were trimmed 10 feet above the power lines," said Meisell. "And as he continued to complain he was the one who actually became irritated to the point he had a newspaper in his hand and he shook the newspaper in my face."

Meisell said he then told Clark to 'get that newspaper out of my face.'

That same day after lunch, Meisell said he tried to step away from Clark when he was confronted again and got in his truck. However, Clark was leaning against Meisell's truck. When Meisell got back out of his truck the two exchanged more words and Meisell claims Clark grabbed his arm.

Before Clark grabbed his arm, Meisell said he did tell Clark, 'you write things you don't know about, you don't understand and you say things that aren't true.'

Meisell said he then told Clark to 'get his hands off him' and got into his truck and left.

Commenting on Clark's letter, Meisell said he not only objects to his first letter [to the editor] but also his most recent letter [to the city] because of material errors and omissions in his description of what happened.

Mayor Heffley and Meisell also addressed other issues in Clark's letter including relations between the city and commissioners court, the GCD, Meisell's salary and letters to the editor.

Mayor Heffley then asked council members for their thoughts on the issue. Councilman Curtiss Schonenberg said he took it upon himself to speak with Clark after receiving the letter and Clark was apologetic about the possible gesturing.

"I don't think he was meaning for it to get to where it's gone," said Schonenberg. "He [Clark] said he would not do it again [write another letter] and if he had a problem with the city or city employee he would contact me first."

Meisell reminded council that Clark is the one who wrote the letter.

After further discussion from Meisell, Mayor Heffley and council members no action was taken and it was agreed not to pursue the issue any further.

Next on Mayor Heffley's radar was the use of CCIDC grant funds. The controversy occurred after the CCIDC distributed $36,500 in grant funds, which they awarded to different local organizations. Of those funds, $6,500 were awarded to the CCVBC for interpretative signage. However, Mayor Heffley said he believed the funds should have been allotted for a lightning detection system.

"To my total amazement and disappointment a lightning detection system was not considered seriously enough to be awarded and here in lies my personal rub with CCIDC," said Heffley. "The disappointment lies in the fact that interpretative signage comes in front of the safety of our youth."

Mayor Heffley cited the safety of the city's children as a main reason for his desires for the system. He gave nine locations where detection of an impeding thunderstorm, often accompanied by lightning, would be helpful. They were the west of the Marley-Giddens Center, St. Paul Lutheran Creative Child Care Center playground, city golf course, city swimming pool and track, along with the football, baseball, softball and soccer fields.

"We had two thunderstorm delays in two years at the football field, wouldn't it be nice if we had this piece of equipment available to tell our citizens and visitors to get off those aluminum stands," said Mayor Heffley.

Following his comments, Mayor Heffley asked the CCIDC to relinquish the allotted $6,500 for the purchase of the interpretative signage to be used for the system and let other organizations help raise the difference for the $17,200 system.

"We have not had a fatality at this time [due to lightning] but modern technology allows us the opportunity of reducing the possibility."

CCIDC president and city council board member Chuck Rankin was then asked for his thoughts.

Rankin responded to the mayor's statement about the CCIDC not taking his request seriously enough.

"You weren't there. So for you to say that seems to me to be most inappropriate," said Rankin referring to the not taken seriously statement by Heffley. "Members of the board spent significant time discussing that issue. It was an open discussion about the system's effectiveness, how it would work and questions were specifically asked of the two grant requestors in attendance. I'm sorry but we discussed in detail what is the best way to allocate these dollars."

The mayor apologized and said he did not mean to belittle the CCIDC or its board members.

Rankin said he would convey the mayor's request to board members regarding the lightning system. The board revisited the item during their meeting on Monday, Nov. 19 at which time the board agreed to leave the grant monies in place as they were awarded, according to Rankin.

The final address by the mayor was concerning the CCVB.

"This is the issue where I feel the air needs to be cleared," said mayor Heffley. "It's become apparent to me that there's a lack of respect to the city from the CCVB and questioning by our administration of decisions made by CCVB by the city."

The first example given was regarding contract terms. In September 2006 the council discussed a continuation clause for CCVB directors and voted on a one-year clause, according to mayor Heffley. Then in August 2007 when the clause came back to council it still had the two-year term instead of one.

"When the city says one year clause, that's what they want. That's their pleasure and direction to you," said Mayor Heffley.

Also addressed was the CCVB budget and the meeting of deadlines regarding the budget.

Mayor Heffley continued, addressing the CCVB bylaws. In May 2006 new bylaws were written, but according to Heffley, were not approved by council.

"This omission of bringing those documents to this city is a violation of your bylaw," said Heffley.

He asked that the CCVB review their bylaws and send them to the city for approval.

Also during that agenda item the hotel/motel tax was discussed and the possibility of allowing other entities besides the CCVB receive a portion of the revenue.

Council agreed to place this issue back on the agenda the next couple of months for discussion.

Also clearing the air was Meisell during his monthly city manager's report. According to Meisell, concerns have been expressed about the accounting methods used by the City of Columbus. The three questions Meisell said have been raised were: what is the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting, when and why did the city convert from cash to accrual accounting and do city officials use the accrual method to "cover-up" something.

In regards to the type of system used by the city, Meisell said the accrual system, which the city uses, is more sophisticated and complex than the traditional cash accounting.

"The best way to describe it is that cash accounting is to algebra what accrual accounting is to calculus."

He continued stating the city has been on the accrual system for more than 35 years. He also stated that the system is not used to "cover-up" items and, in fact, the accrual system is more transparent and difficult to cover things up.

Also during reports, Meisell gave several updates on the city's wells. Cardinal well is still using the pump motor on loan from the city of Layne. The Tait well has performed without interruption since the last discussion and work on the Spring well is expected to commence this month.

Meisell also reported that the city's survey of miles of gas lines resulted in the detection of 11 minor leaks. He stated that the majority of leaks have been repaired and the city is working on the remaining problems.

A variety of other topics were discussed including Groundwater Conservation District results, drainage improvements, river status, tree trimming, sewer line aggravations and striping project.

In other business council: