BELLE — The Belle Board of Aldermen voted to censure Alderman Rebecca Withouse during its April 14 meeting, but the action escalated into a broader dispute over whether the mayor violated the same standards he cited against her.

The censure stems from the March 10 meeting, when Withouse raised concerns about previously approved meeting minutes in closed session without notifying the mayor or other board members in advance.

In the resolution read into the record, the mayor said those actions violated the city’s code of conduct, including provisions requiring elected officials to avoid blindsiding others during meetings and to refrain from interfering with administrative functions.

Mayor James (Pudd) Mitchell read from a resolution of censure document prepared by city attorney James Klahr. 

“And there, on March the 10, 2026, Alderwoman Rebecca Withouse entered into the closed session of the board of aldermen,” Mitchell said. “And whereas Alderwoman Withouse declared that she wanted to discuss a personnel matter and asked that the city treasurer and city clerk leave the closed session.

“And whereas Alderwoman Withouse had not communicated with the mayor or any other board member prior to her abrupt request to discuss what she described as a personnel matter, whereas Alderwoman Withouse proceeded to question the February 25, 2026, meeting minutes that the board had previously approved during the open session of the meeting.

“Whereas Alderwoman Withouse’s conduct was in violation of the city code of conduct to not knowingly blindside other officials, board, commission members nor staff in public meetings, but will ask questions ahead of, or immediately following, a public meeting whenever possible.”

Mitchell then asked the board if they wanted to take a vote.

Withouse asked if she could speak and Mitchell said she could. Withouse immediately challenged the process, ironically enough arguing she was not given the same consideration the mayor claimed she failed to provide.

“I would like it noted on the record that I have not been provided any prior notice of charges or any opportunity to review or to respond to any proposed action beyond that which was listed on the agenda,” she said.

She asked that if further action were pursued, proper notice and procedure should be required.

“If there is an attempt to pursue removal or any similar action, I would respectfully request that proper notice and process be followed,” Withouse said.

Withouse defended her approach to governance by reminding the board of her personal commitment to transparency and public accountability.

“I believe transparency and open communication are essential in local government. That includes how we communicate with the public and how we represent matters on the record,” Withouse said. “I understand not everyone will agree with my approach, but I will continue to act in a way that keeps the public informed and prioritizes the residents I was elected to serve. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate it.”

Alderman Steve Vogt made a motion to censure Withouse, with Alderman Jeanette Struemph seconding. The board proceeded with the vote and Alderman Seth Klein joined in approving the censure three to zero, due to Withouse abstaining.

“I didn’t think it was appropriate for me to vote, because it was a measure of censure against me,” Withouse said.

Discussion continued later in the meeting when clarification on the cause of the censure was asked. The issue then shifted from the original conduct allegation to the process used to carry out the censure.

At the center of that dispute was the same concept cited in the resolution itself — blindsiding.

The mayor’s resolution of censure accused Withouse of blindsiding officials by raising concerns without prior notice. Yet, Withouse maintained she was given no advance warning that a censure would be brought against her.

Discussion during the later portion of the meeting confirmed she had not been provided prior explanation beyond what was on the agenda before the resolution was introduced. This was verified by Mitchell.

Mitchell was asked who had spoken to Withouse about the censure before the meeting.

“Nobody,” Mitchell said.

This response raises the question of whether the mayor, in censuring Withouse for blindsiding the board in closed session without her bringing it up before the meeting, had engaged in the same code of conduct violation.

When pressed for a comment on if his actions were also a violation of the code of conduct under the same scope, Mitchell immediately referred the question to the city attorney.

“James, do you want to answer that?” Mitchell said.

Klahr said that the purpose of the code of conduct that the city adopted in August of last year was to make sure that all city officials worked cooperatively.

“So in light of the meeting that occurred in March, the March meeting, that is what led to the conversation I had with the mayor regarding, you know, a desire to look at that,” Klahr said. “What we think is an appropriate response here, and the response that the mayor wanted me to look into was a censure and so that is what I drafted for the city to consider.”

Klahr then began to talk about Sunshine Law.

“Sunshine Law, of course, has a requirement of certain items being put in the notice at least 24 hours in advance. That’s required by the statute,” Klahr said. “There are some limited exceptions for issues.”

Klahr was interrupted and Mitchell was asked again if he had just blindsided Withouse.

“It was on the agenda,” Mitchell said.

The official agenda for the meeting lists the first item under New Business as “Proposed Censure of Alderperson.”

It was pointed out to Mitchell that the terminology used could be in reference to any of the four aldermen.

“It is what it is,” Mitchell said. “That’s what it said.”

If an item placed on the agenda serves as enough information to avoid triggering a violation of the code of conduct, then Mitchell’s reliance on the vague listing of “Proposed Censure of Alderperson” — without directly identifying Withouse or providing prior notice — would appear to mirror the same kind of blindsiding he cited against her.

Unlike the vague descriptive on the agenda from the April 14 meeting of “alderperson,” the official agenda for the March 10 meeting lists the first item under Approval of Minutes as “Minutes from Regular Session held on February 25, 2026,” indicating specifically what would be discussed.

Mitchell then asked if he could get a motion to go out of open session and into closed. Vogt made the motion and was seconded by Struemph.

The debate surrounding the vote — particularly over notice, process and policy consistency — remained unresolved as the meeting ended.

During an interview with Alderman Seth Klein on April 16, he said that Mitchell had contacted him before the meeting to let him know the censure was about Withouse. A conversation with Alderman Jeanette Struemph, held on the same day, revealed she had also spoken with the mayor before the meeting and knew the censure was regarding Withouse.

Vogt has not responded to any questions from The Advocate at this time.

When Klein was asked if Mitchell would be censured for his actions at the recent meeting, he said he would need to review the code of conduct before giving a statement on whether or not he believed the mayor was in violation of its terms.

The resolution calls upon Withouse to conduct herself in a civil and respectful manner consistent with the expectations of the code of conduct and requires her to raise concerns through the mayor and board. The board also reserved the right to take additional action if it determines she is not adhering to the code of conduct.