BELLE — An Aug. 26 discussion about the city’s recent media coverage turned into a public disagreement among Belle aldermen that focused on transparency, communication between council members and whether city concerns should be taken to the press.

The exchange began near the end of the regular board meeting when Alderman Steve Vogt read a prepared statement he said was prompted by newspaper articles published during the previous two weeks and questions submitted by the media.

“I will not be answering now or in the future a continuous, unending onslaught of unwarranted, insidious questions posed under the guise of transparency,” Vogt said. “There is nothing illegal or nefarious to see. Period.”

Vogt questioned the motivation behind what he described as efforts to undermine the city’s progress and said disagreements between elected officials should be addressed during public meetings.

“When the city is successful, it’s because we, as elected officials, are working together,” Vogt said. “That does not mean we will always agree with each other, but when we have disagreements, we can and should discuss those during our regular meetings and before the citizens we serve, rather than using any third party, including the media, to serve as a substitute.”

Alderwoman Jeanette Struemph expanded on Vogt’s comments, saying council members should focus on improvements made in Belle rather than what she characterized as negativity.

“I don’t think we need all the negativity that goes around,” Struemph said.

Struemph also criticized information about Belle appearing in a Columbia newspaper.

“I don’t know why we would even be interested in having things in the Columbia newspaper in Belle,” Struemph said. “It has nothing to do with Belle, Missouri. It is all negativity, and people that are feeding them information should not be sitting on this council.”

Alderwoman Rebecca Withouse then questioned whether Struemph was expressing her own views or speaking for the board.

“Are those the views of the board, or are those individual?” Withouse asked.

When asked whether she was speaking for the board, Struemph responded, “I’m speaking for the council, and I’m speaking for the board.”

Withouse questioned the statement, saying she understood the city’s code of conduct to provide that only the mayor could speak on behalf of the council.

“I thought per the code of conduct, that no one was allowed to speak for the council except the mayor,” Withouse said.

Struemph responded that she had received permission.

“I asked permission from the mayor (James (Pudd) Mitchell) to speak,” Struemph said.

However, The Advocate’s recording of the meeting and a livestream posted to Withouse’s Facebook page contain no recorded statement from Mitchell granting Struemph permission to speak on behalf of the council or board on the topic before she made the remarks. The Advocate also found no written record of such permission.

Withouse defended her communication with the media and her efforts to make city information public. She said the interview being discussed had originally taken place approximately a year and a half to two years earlier and defended her push for transparency.

“Yes, I am for transparency,” Withouse said. “I’m still not allowed at City Hall per the mayor’s instructions at the beginning of that, which is on a recording as well. This is the fourth packet I’ve got before the meeting to have the opportunity to review it.”

Withouse said communication from the mayor has improved but added that she does not believe she receives the same level of information as other members of the board.

“I have noticed an improvement in the mayor reaching out and giving me the chance to have my opinion noted, but I will not say that I experience this same information sharing that the rest of you seem to be privileged with,” Withouse said.

“I apologize for the fact that you all feel so personally targeted by this, I do because I’m not targeting you individually,” Withouse said. “It’s really not. It’s the behavior. It’s the minute requests being ignored. It’s citizens that want to be involved being excluded because they don’t have the right name, or connection, or they made the wrong person mad.”

Withouse said residents contact her privately with questions they want raised and said she considers herself accountable to those citizens.

“So yes, I do,” Withouse said. “I speak for the citizens who message me privately on Facebook and say, ‘Hey, can you ask this?’”

“There is an election coming up,” she added. “If you are not happy with what I am doing for the city of Belle, please vote me out.”

Struemph responded that she also speaks for Belle residents and said everyone in the city should receive equal treatment.

“I don’t give a damn what your last name is. You all bleed red. You’re all a citizen of Belle. You should be treated equal,” Struemph said. “But I don’t like outsiders coming in and all this flashing in the paper.”

She then returned to criticism of newspaper coverage.

“We have nothing from the paper but negativity,” Struemph said.

Struemph pointed to a new preschool preparing to open and accomplishments by Belle High School students as examples of positive developments she said had not received coverage.

“I see nothing in our paper about the good things that are going on, the things that our children are doing to make this town look good,” Struemph said.

Vogt questioned what effect negative coverage could have on efforts to attract new residents.

“How do you expect people to move to Belle when everything you see in the paper is negative?” Vogt asked.

The discussion then turned into Belle’s efforts to attract residents and businesses. Struemph said economic development requires a school families want their children to attend and profitable businesses capable of providing employment.

“We have no industrial park,” Struemph said. “This used to be a booming town.”

The discussion ended shortly afterward when Mitchell said the council had gotten “way off track” and returned the meeting to the agenda.