The Glen Arden City Council voted to appoint Sean Nichols Sr. as director of public works on Sept. 15, 2025, approving the appointment by motion after a council discussion about whether such hires should require a formal resolution.

Council members and staff debated process and transparency before the vote. Councilman Herring objected to using a motion rather than a resolution, saying a resolution typically “spells out the salary, the fact that they follow the personnel manual” and gives citizens notice. Councilwoman Cross noted past practice of appointing department heads by resolution and asked why this appointment was handled differently.

City officials responded that the city charter requires council approval but does not prescribe the procedure and that the city attorney advised a motion could be used for efficiency. A staff member identified in the meeting as “Mr. Simpson” said the city had used motions for similar hires previously and that the attorney had advised the motion route to avoid the longer resolution process.

Councilman Herring repeatedly pressed for the salary amount before voting. The clerk recorded that the city budgeted the public works director role at $84,072 and that the salary offered matched the budgeted amount. At the vote, Councilwoman Cross voted yes, Councilman Herring abstained, Councilwoman Jones and Councilwoman Williams voted yes, Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson and Mayor Curtis voted yes, and the motion passed.

The council distinguished discussion from formal action: members debated procedure and asked for written confirmation from the city attorney, but the formal council action on the appointment was the roll-call vote that approved Nichols’ appointment. Multiple members asked the clerk and staff to circulate the attorney’s written guidance after the meeting.

The appointment will be paid from the public works regular salaries line, the treasurer said; the $84,072 figure cited at the meeting referred to salary only and did not include benefits or insurance costs.

Council members who opposed the motion method or expressed concern said they would press for clearer written documentation of attorney advice and for including salary and benefits in future appointment paperwork. Supporters said they trusted the existing classification and budget process and the city manager’s administration to follow pay and classification rules.

The council did not adopt a separate resolution specifying benefits or cost-of-living adjustments for this appointment during the session.