BELLE — The Belle Board of Aldermen voted July 14 to reconsider last month’s Planning and Zoning Commission appointments before approving a revised slate of nine commissioners to serve staggered terms.

The issue first surfaced during citizen participation when resident Steven Bedwell questioned Mayor James (Pudd) Mitchell’s authority to appoint members to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

“This is the board of aldermen, right?” Bedwell asked before questioning why people could be removed from the commission “to put your friends in there.”

Mitchell responded that the appointment process is governed by city ordinance.

“We have an ordinance to say the mayor makes nominations, and then council approves it,” Mitchell said.

Bedwell argued that the process appeared to allow the mayor to choose who serves on the commission while preventing other citizens from participating. Mitchell rejected that characterization, saying Bedwell did not know who would ultimately be nominated.

The discussion resumed under old business, where city attorney James Klahr explained why he had recommended revisiting the appointments that were approved during the board’s June meeting.

Reading from Section 400.010 of the Belle Municipal Code, Klahr explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission must consist of no fewer than seven and no more than 15 members. Citizen members are appointed by the mayor with approval of the board of aldermen and serve staggered four-year terms. The staggering of terms ensures that the commission retains experienced members rather than having every appointment expire at the same time. Vacancies are filled only for the remainder of the unexpired term.

Klahr said the June appointments themselves were valid but noted the board had never formally established the staggered terms required by ordinance. During last month’s meeting, the board voted on and approved a measure that put the setting of the staggered terms under the responsibility of Planning & Zoning.

“One of the things I told the mayor after the hearing was ... the board really didn’t set the terms of the members of Planning and Zoning,” Klahr said. “It makes a lot more sense for the board ... to actually appoint the members to the staggered terms, which I think is what the ordinance talks about.”

He also addressed questions about voting procedure, explaining that board members are legally permitted to vote for themselves if they choose, although abstaining remains an option.

That prompted Alderwoman Rebecca Withouse to question whether she had previously been held to a different standard during a vote in a previous meeting where she was censured by the board.

Aldermen passed a Resolution of Censure against Withouse in a 3-0-1 vote on April 14, with Withouse abstaining. The censure followed ongoing political tension and a code of conduct dispute within City Hall.

During that meeting, Mitchell read the resolution into the record, he said her actions during the closed meeting on March 10 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.

Withouse immediately challenged the process, ironically 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 during the April meeting. “I do feel that it’s a little bit exclusionary, and I would like that on the record.”

During a June 11 vote to appoint members to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Aldermen Jeanette Struemph and Steve Vogt abstained, versus voting for or against the motion. According to Belle’s Code of Conduct, aldermen “have a duty to vote and shall not abstain unless ethically required to do so,” and that any abstention must be accompanied by a publicly stated reason. While both aldermen explained their abstentions, neither cited an ethical conflict as the reason. Despite the apparent inconsistency with the code’s requirement that abstentions be based on an ethical necessity, the board took no action regarding the abstentions.

Following Klahr’s recommendation to revisit last month’s vote, Withouse made the motion asking the board to reconsider the action taken during the June meeting.

“I would like to recall my vote, reconsider my motion to appoint all interested citizens for a total of nine members to the Board of Planning and Zoning Committee,” she said.

The motion received a second from Alderman Seth Klein and passed by 4-0 vote.

Before the board began voting on individual appointments, Withouse questioned how the staggered terms had been assigned.

“I notice your name is not on here,” she told Mitchell, asking whether he intended to serve as a voting member of the commission.

Mitchell replied that he planned to attend meetings but “probably not” serve as a voting member.

Withouse also asked whether Mitchell had consulted with prospective commissioners or fellow aldermen before assigning the various term lengths.

“We just went down through there,” Mitchell replied.

When Withouse asked who “we” referred to, Mitchell answered, “I sat down and went down through it.”

Asked whether he consulted anyone else, Mitchell replied simply, “Nope.”

The board then voted individually on each appointment to establish the staggered terms.

Approved were:

• Bev Abel, four-year term.

• (Alderman) Jeanette Struemph, two-year term.

• Barb Howarth, three-year term.

• Mike Dugan, three-year term.

•Randy Fry, two-year term.

• Kevin Guffey, one-year term.

• Ben Simpson, one-year term.

• Steven Bedwell, one-year term.

•Linda Weida, one-year term.

The only dissenting vote came during Struemph’s appointment to the commission.

Withouse voted against the appointment, explaining that although city ordinance permits the board of aldermen to place one of its own members on the Planning and Zoning Commission, she personally believes an alderman should not serve in that role because of the potential conflict created when zoning recommendations later come before the board for final approval.

“For me, I don’t think that,” Withouse said before casting the lone “no” vote.

The appointment passed with a 3-1 vote.

With the appointments approved, the city now has a nine-member Planning and Zoning Commission whose staggered terms satisfy the requirements outlined in the municipal ordinance, allowing future appointments to occur on a rotating basis rather than replacing the entire commission at one time.