An item that has been on and off of the agenda for several meetings regarding the role of the aldermen as it relates to the day-to-day operation of the city and their role in the board meetings was finally addressed.
Alderman Gary Fratesi, who had placed the item on the agenda, said, “We’ve got to stay out of the mix.”
He stated that he was attempting to get clarification that the aldermen are not to interfere in the daily activities of the city workers.
“Aldermen are legislative and financial. We’re not supposed to get in on the actual day-to-day. We can request, but we cannot tell any department head anything,” Fratesi said.
Attorney Kimberly Merchant affirmed that and added that she believes each city leader knows that.
Fratesi then mentioned a previous video and TV newscast segment involving some public works employees where some aldermen were present and how he felt it was improper for the aldermen to be a part of that.
Merchant said she had not seen the video but asserted that it would likely not be improper for an alderman to be present to hear the workers’ complaints as long as they did not direct a department head or employee to complete any action.
“It’s a gray area,” she said.
Fratesi also presented another scenario where a worker would tell their supervisor that he or she does not have to listen to them but calls an alderman to intervene instead. “That breeahes protocol, but if an employee does call an alderman, they need to be aware that aldermen don’t have authority,” Merchant said.
She explained how the procedure for making complaints is supposed to be handled and summarized that “ultimately, everything rolls up, but the process has to be followed.”
Vice-mayor Ruben Woods also asked a question for clarity but prefaced it with a statement directed at Fratesi.
“I can’t believe Gary asked that question, because I used to be the city inspector, he used to give me hell every day,” Woods said.
He then asked if it was permissible for the aldermen to inform the department heads about issues they became aware of that needed to be addressed. And Merchant affirmed that they and any citizen had that right.
She also said that the aldermen had the right to ask if the issue has been taken care of, but that it should be done in the board meetings or through the mayor.
In other business,
A required municipal compliance questionnaire that each municipality has to approve was adopted after some requested changes. According to the state, each municipality must make certain assertions each fiscal year with regard to legal compliance.
All municipalities are supposed to complete the document every year and Indianola’s auditors reportedly completed the one for this year and submitted it for board approval according to City Clerk Kaneilia Williams.
She said the aldermen simply had to approve the information and place it in the minutes; however, the aldermen raised several questions about some of the responses on the document. Williams said, "It's yes to my knowledge and the auditors have verified this whole report."
The city leaders elected to approve the form only after some of the yes answers were changed to no.
One of the items on the questionnaire dealt with whether or not the minutes were properly signed and submitted within the correct time frame.
Another question was with regard to whether or not officers and employees refrain from accepting gifts and kickbacks from suppliers.
And a third question addressed the issue of whether or not the city has conducted an annual inventory of its assets in accordance to state auditor guidelines. Alderman Sam Brock said, "We have not gotten the complete inventory report from all departments, so how are you answering that yes?"
Williams again iterated her previous statement that the auditors had verified and approved the questionnaire and offered no other comment.
“We should have been written up, the auditor didn't write us up on that? It goes back to auditors who aren't doing their job," Fratesi said.
The report is supposed to be adopted at the first meeting after the end of the fiscal year, so they voted to change yes to no and approved it 3-0.
Williams said, "All of these questions were verified and are insisted by the auditors that the city of Indianola hired to complete these questions."
Also, the 2016-2017-audit report conducted by Brown, Ewing and Company P.A., was finally approved 2-1 with Alderman Gary Fratesi abstaining.
The city leaders voted unanimously to move the October 25 regular board meeting to Thursday October 21 due to the Mississippi Municipal League's Small Town Conference.
They also approved paying postage for 4,000 water bill cards to be mailed out in the month of November. In light of some customers receiving duplicate bills in the month of October, Woods asked if there would be any additional postage for the month and Williams said there would not be.
The vote was 2-1 with regard to approving a city noise ordinance. Brock voted no.
The lawmakers agreed to increase the number of hours allotted in the original contract for the Sunflower County Circuit Clerk for her assistance with the 2021 municipal election. It increased from 30 to 35 hours.
The vote was also 2-1 to approve the minutes from the September 27 meeting with Fratesi voting to abstain because he was not present. In addition, the vote was also 3-0 to approve the minutes from the October 4 special call meeting, wherein the city leaders took no actions although they had a quorum. The motions were reportedly made, but no seconds were offered up and as a result, no actions were taken.
Mayor Steve Rosenthal and Alderman Darrell Simpson were absent.
