The city will not unmask, at least for another two weeks anyway.
During the Monday night Indianola Board of Aldermen meeting the city lawmakers voted unanimously to keep the mask mandate as a part of the city’s emergency proclamation.
In addition to asking the citizens to keep the cover-ups on, they voted to also maintain the established restrictions with regard to gatherings, 10 people indoors and 50 outdoors where social distancing is not possible. This most recent adaptation also maintains the capacity for retail business at 50%. The mandate does not address church gatherings.
The one decision regarding the emergency order that did not receive a uniform consensus was the citywide curfew and the curfew on restaurants and bars. They voted 3-2 to impose a 1 a.m., shutdown instead of the previous 12 a.m., restriction. Aldermen Gary Fratesi and Sam Brock voted no on the curfew adjustment.
The lawmakers revisit the proclamation every two weeks and will reassess these decisions at their next meeting.
In other business,
The city fathers received a long awaited update on the status of the city's audit for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Kaiser R. Brown, CPA, Brown, Ewing & Company of Jackson said that the 2017 report should be ready for presentation by the end of March and the 2018 document should be ready by the end of April.
He said they are waiting on a few additional reports. Brown said they could possibly have a 2019 report ready by the end of the year. The firm was contracted more than a year ago to conduct an independent audit of the city's books, which was delayed somewhat by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The leaders also voted unanimously to contract with Local Government Services, LLC to examine the city's contract with its cable and fiber franchise agreements. Attorney Kim Merchant had been asked to review the document and concluded that it was standard and did not present any issues for the city.
The contract has a $5,000 cap with regard to payout; however, Mayor Steve Rosenthal said that the work they are expecting the firm to do should cost around $1,000 or less.
The issue of excessive overtime was also raised after Brock asked what kind of corroboration was available on employees who are receiving large amounts of hours worked above their regular hours. “What kind of documentation is being kept on these employees who are in excess of 40 hours a pay period in overtime?” he asked.
There seemed to be some confusion about the figures on an overtime report that possibly indicated that some employees were working 24 to 30 hours per day. Rosenthal attempted to explain that those large numbers are easily possible with workers such as firemen and police.
Brock indicated that he understood the circumstances regarding those departments and seemingly directed his concern and comments towards individuals in the public works department. Rosenthal said that he would get with the department heads to arrive at an acceptable percentage for overtime hours, but would not compromise on services to the citizens.
Brock noted a situation where someone had accumulated 70 hours worth of overtime, but said he would give Rosenthal more specific examples of his concern in their executive session. Fratesi also had questions about the figures on the report so Rosenthal said he would have the human resources clerk attend the next meeting to explain the submission.
The city leaders also discussed the possibility of extra compensation for the employees who showed up for work during the recent ice storm. However, Attorney Merchant stated that it was against the law to pay an employee for hours that they did not work.
She also mentioned that since the city was not officially closed and no emergency declaration was made that it was illegal to pay the employees. Merchant also mentioned there was no policy in place prior to the storm to address that scenario.
She said a policy could be implemented to address future incidents, but no action was taken.
Brock brought the matter up for discussion because some employees showed up to work despite the icy roads that made travel hazardous. Brock said that he both agreed and disagreed with Merchant’s decision and asserted that those who came to work should receive some recompense.
City employees who did not work those days had to use vacation or leave time. Rosenthal explained the city's policy and asserted that he, public works employees and police officers who worked were available to pick up other employees who did not feel comfortable about driving themselves.
Rosenthal mentioned that some employees who did not show up never even bothered to call their supervisors to say that they would not be in, which he asserted was their responsibility based on the employee handbook.
He maintained that since some citizens were able to travel the icy roadways to come to city hall to pay their bills, then some of the workers could have made it also.
As a closely related point Alderman Marvin Elder suggested that the city officials do a better job of reaching out to employees in the future about what their expectations are for reporting to work during those type situations.
He suggested that Rosenthal notify the department heads and each department head be responsible for notifying the members of their crew.
The members also approved the departmental reports including a report from the police department outlining shots-fired calls.
Fratesi made a plea to the citizens asking them to notify police whenever they experience a shots-fired incident in their neighborhood.
He asserted that this is the best way to deter the occurrences and it would give the officers better knowledge of where the shootings are happening.
The lawmakers also approved payment of the necessary fee to have an electrician to again remove a pair of gym shoes from the power lines at the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Garrard Avenue.
