Indianola Mayor Steve Rosenthal is wielding his veto power.
Rosenthal announced on Wednesday that he has decided to veto a motion that was carried unanimously during Monday night’s meeting to remove “No Parking” signs from Henderson Street.
Alderman Sam Brock raised the question during the departmental reports about whether Rosenthal had overstepped his bounds by ordering the signs put up, and the query escalated into an exchange between Brock and Rosenthal.
In the segment regarding departmental reports, before calling for a motion, Rosenthal asked if there were any questions regarding the reports and Brock indicated that he had a question and called for Robert Spurlock, Public Works Field Operations Supervisor, to come to the front of the room.
“He’s welcome to stay where he is,” Rosenthal said. However, Brock was insistent, “No, he’s welcome to come up here,” said Brock.
Brock persisted in his call for Spurlock to come from the back of the room, so Rosenthal stated, “These department heads are not children, they are full adults.” Brock then declared that he appreciated Rosenthal’s perception and asserted that Rosenthal should treat them (the aldermen) like adults who know how to conduct business.
Spurlock eventually yielded and said, “Let us do this and get this over with.” Brock asked him where the directive came from to install “No Parking” signs on Henderson Street.
When Rosenthal attempted to respond, Brock asserted that the mayor didn’t have anything to do with it.
“No sir, the mayor does have something to do with it,” Rosenthal said.
Rosenthal said he directed Public Works Director Jimmy Strong to put the signs up and said the action fell under the mayor’s day-to-day functions. Brock then questioned if Rosenthal had the authority to order such action without the aldermen’s approval.
Rosenthal assured him that he does have the authority and has done it many times before because he is responsible for day-to-day functions.
Rosenthal then called for a motion to approve the reports, Brock made the motion to approve, but with the stipulation that the signs be taken down.
Rosenthal suggested that he make the sign removal a separate motion and just allow for a motion to approve the reports.
But Brock insisted that they stay together, so his motion failed for lack of a second. Alderman Ruben Woods then questioned why the signs were put up in the first place and Rosenthal said, “Every citizen on that block except the ones who were doing it, asked for them to be there.”
Brock then asked if any parking tickets were written and Rosenthal explained that no tickets were given because without the signs there was no violation, but now that the signs are there, tickets can be written.
“So, you done made a municipal law by yourself? (The) Steve Rosenthal/Henderson Street Law,” said Brock. Rosenthal refuted the notion that he wrote any new law.
Alderman Marvin Elder questioned why the need for four signs in front of just three houses on that dead-end street.
However, Rosenthal contended there were only three signs. Elder also mentioned a safety concern and the need for signs near the Save the Children Head Start Center on Roosevelt Street and the Mayor said those signs were erected also.
Alderman Gary Fratesi then made a motion to approve the reports and it passed 3-2. Brock then entered a second motion to remove the Henderson Street signs until the board gave approval and it passed.
City Inspector Elvis Pernell then asked if the motion included the signs that were just placed on Roosevelt Street also and Rosenthal said it did since Brock wanted board approval.
However, Brock objected and attempted to argue that those could stay but Rosenthal’s contention was that those signs were also erected without the consensus of the board, so they needed to come down also.
After conferring with the city engineer and city inspector this week, Rosenthal released a letter to the board and to The E-T explaining that “The placement of these signs is not a board issue but is the day to day operations per our ordinance (City Code Article XVII – Parking Regulations).
“The motion to remove the signs from only Henderson because it was not board approved but not remove those on Roosevelt is improper,” the letter went on to say. “To make this motion because someone is the Alderman’s buddy or friend or they do not look like them or they do look like them only separates our city further.”
