– In regular session Tuesday, the Watonga City Council seemed poised to tackle the perceived issues with transparency and accessibility to the citizens.
Council member Neal Riley, who had been an outspoken critic of former city manager Karrie Beth Little, brought to the council an agenda item that he described as a roadmap for placing items on the agenda. That had previously been a convoluted process, requiring placing a request, in writing, which was then reviewed by the city manager and frequently denied with the requester instead directed to a council member or a discussion with the manager.
Riley’s proposed resolution asks that a citizen make a request to their council member, who could sign off on the request if deemed appropriate. Council members themselves and the city attorney could also ask for items to be placed on the agenda.
Council member Debbie McGee was originally opposed to the idea. She had issues with the language of the resolution, specifically the term ‘directed’ as applied to the city clerk. It is outside the authority of a council member to influence the work of a city employee. McGee also felt that Riley should have spoken to the council members privately about the proposal, but Riley explained that would be a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
In a stark departure from previous meetings, some of the approximately 50 citizens in attendance voiced their opinions without being silenced or ushered from the meeting room.
Jacky Morris said “I can’t see why anyone on the council would object to this. We need a way for citizens to get on the agenda.”
At that point the back and forth threatened to dissolve into a heated debate about hearing complaints, but it was pulled back on by frequent reminders from Riley and members of the audience that the discussion was concerning how to get on the agenda, not how to air grievances. “It’s not about public comment,” Riley said. “It’s a roadmap for getting on the agenda. It is a foundational step in restoring public confidence in city government.”
At that point city attorney Jared Harrison asked if McGee’s objections could be cleared by changing the language slightly. When she replied in the affirmative, the attorney quickly offered to replace the term ‘direct’ with ‘ask to have included on’ the agenda.
A second issue was when the information packet for council members was available. Riley asked the timeline be reworked so that the draft agenda and information be available by Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting so that members could have adequate time to research and explore the information fully prior to the meeting.
The resolution was passed unanimously once the objections were eradicated.
A second enormous issue was also brought to the council by Riley, who asked about having a forensic audit undertaken by the office of the State Auditor and Inspector.
“An exit audit never hurts any office,” he said. He also pointed out it would serve to protect a new city manager from misdeeds of the past administration.
A forensic audit is far more complicated than an exit audit, though. Riley pointed to more than $100,000 in uncollected utility bills and a down payment made on construction of a second speculative home in town. The bills have not been sent to a collection agency and the construction has not begun, nor is it scheduled.
Harrison, the attorney, pointed out the state auditor would charge the city. Estimates range from $25,000 to $75,000 and the process could take up to a year.
Dacia Phillips, the city’s accountant, told the council if it requested a forensic audit, the request needed to be as specific as possible. She pointed to one of the items Riley had named, reimbursements to the city manager within a specific time period, as a good guideline for specificity.
“So we need to be clear about what we are looking for,” Mayor Ryan Bruner said. Riley replied that at the very least the council would know what mistakes were made and how to avoid them in the future.
“We’re into it now, I don’t see any way out of it,” said council member Howard Hursh.
This vote, too, was unanimous, with the council asking the city attorney to begin the process of requesting a forensic audit into the city’s financial dealings over the past four or five years.