BELLE — A June 11 vote by the Belle Board of Aldermen has drawn attention to a provision within the city’s code of conduct that requires elected officials to vote unless they are ethically required to abstain.

The issue stems from the board’s vote to appoint nine residents to the city’s Planning and Zoning Board.

During that vote, Aldermen Jeanette Struemph and Steve Vogt abstained rather than voting for or against the motion.

“I’m going to abstain from this, because this is something that’s been here for years and years,” Struemph said.

“I feel the same,” Vogt said. “I’m going to abstain.”

The motion ultimately passed after City Attorney James Klahr advised the board that abstentions are not counted as votes against a motion.

“Their votes count as no vote, sorry, not as a no vote, as no vote at all,” Klahr said during the meeting.

The abstentions have raised questions because Belle’s code of conduct contains specific language governing when elected officials may abstain from voting.

Section E of Ordinance 662, titled “Abstentions,” states:

“Each alderperson has a duty to vote and shall not abstain unless ethically required to do so. When it is necessary to abstain from voting, a reason for the abstention must be stated publicly at the time of the vote.”

Both Struemph and Vogt publicly stated reasons for abstaining. Neither alderman referenced an ethical conflict as their reason.

Generally, elected officials abstain from voting when a conflict of interest exists, such as a financial interest, family relationship or another circumstance that could compromise impartiality.

In this case, Struemph stated her abstention was based on the matter having existed “for years and years.” Vogt said he shared the same reasoning.

The code of conduct further reads that alderpersons have a “duty to vote” and may abstain only when ethically required to do so.

Ordinance 662 further says that “a violation of this code of conduct may result in censure or impeachment from office.”

Action city has taken before

Alderman Rebecca Withouse was censured at the April 14 city meeting by the board following events that occurred during the March 10 closed session. According to the censure resolution, Withouse entered the closed meeting and asked Charro Reasor, city-treasurer-office administrator and Cindy Barbarick, city clerk, to leave before addressing the remaining members of the board about wording contained in the official meeting minutes. Specifically, statements made by former mayoral candidate Tracy Creswell during the citizen participation portion of the Feb. 25 board meeting.

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

What Creswell said during the Feb. 25 meeting was: “I just want to take a minute and say I am very sorry that I messed up on my paperwork. And when I make a mistake, I own up to it. Charro, I owe you an apology, and I’m not too proud to admit when I’m wrong, and I just want to let everybody know that I am very sorry it was my mistake. I own up to it. I’m going to pay the fine this week, and I wanted to apologize. I never accused anybody. I made a general comment and it was taken the way that I wanted it to be taken. But I did not accuse anybody, and I know I was rude to you, and I apologize, and that’s all I wanted to say.”

The official minutes following the Feb. 25 Belle Board of Aldermen meeting described citizen Tracy Creswell as having “spoke on the nonsense she made up and reported to the newspaper without fact checking her information. She said she can admit when she is wrong and she is wrong. Additionally, she made an apology to Charro stating she knew she was rude to her.”

During the March 10 closed session, concerns were raised regarding the wording contained in the minutes. When the board returned to open session, Withouse made a motion to reconsider the minutes so the wording could be revised.

She said the goal was to remove language she believed sounded personal or hostile.

“I wanted the potentially attacking language…taken out,” Withouse said. “Because we have a standard, there’s a code of conduct.”

Withouse was referring to Belle City Ordinance 113.490, which addresses employee conduct, and Ordinance 113.520, which outlines disciplinary standards for city employees.

Ordinance 113.490 begins with, “It shall be the duty of each employee to maintain high standards of conduct, cooperation, efficiency and economy in their work for the City. Whenever work habits, attitude, production or personal conduct of any employee falls below desirable standards, supervisors should point out the deficiencies at the time they are observed. Corrections and suggestions should be presented in a constructive and helpful manner in an effort to elicit the cooperation and the needed improvement. Whenever possible, oral and/or written warnings with sufficient time for improvement shall precede formal discipline. City equipment cannot be used for private use or private jobs unless it is a ‘Good Samaritan Act’ to help a citizen of Belle or community related.”

One provision of Ordinance 113.520, Section (p), addresses inappropriate conduct or treatment of members of the public. Some residents have questioned whether the wording used in the minutes is consistent with that provision.

Another provision, Section (h), addresses acts of misconduct while on duty. Questions have been raised regarding whether the preparation of official minutes falls within the scope of that provision.

The city code also includes Section (k), which prohibits falsification of any information required by the city. Some residents have questioned whether the wording in the minutes accurately reflected her comments.

The disputed minutes were never amended, leaving the original language in the official record and making the incident a continuing point of discussion regarding the city’s recordkeeping practices, board member behavior and employee conduct standards.

Ordinance 662 was adopted to establish expectations for elected officials and states that city leaders are responsible for holding themselves and one another accountable while conducting city business in an atmosphere of respect, civility and positive public perception.
Aldermen Struemph and Vogt were sent a series of questions in regards to this matter. As of press time at 10 a.m. June 30, no responses had been received.