Ripley aldermen fail to establish independent five‑member utility board

A motion to establish a five‑member independent utility board to supervise Ripley Power and Light failed during a Ripley Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting after the motion did not receive a sustained second.

Alderman Austin read a motion proposing a five‑member independent utility board “pursuant to the Tennessee Municipal Electric Plant Law of 1935,” with the mayor to appoint four qualified individuals and one member of the board of mayor and aldermen to serve as liaison. Alderman Thomas Thompson initially seconded the motion, but the second was withdrawn and the presiding officer declared the motion failed.

The motion text, as read in the meeting, specified the independent board “shall have all supervisory authorities and responsibilities concerning Ripley Power and Light as set forth in the Tennessee Municipal Electric Plant Law.” The motion was described in the meeting as “subject to the charter, Section 6.”

A separate agenda item to appoint five members to a Ripley Power and Light board was discussed later. Council members said that appointment could not legally proceed while the independent board did not exist. The mayor said any new independent board would not take effect until July (the mayor said “after July 1 this next year”) and that he planned to make nominations at the appropriate time.

Debate during the meeting focused on whether an independent board was necessary and on past problems that prompted scrutiny. Speakers referenced two prior lawsuits tied to the utility’s governance and said there had been “irregularities” including a lack of minutes and withheld records. Some aldermen and other speakers argued the city could accomplish oversight more quickly through existing channels, questioning the need for a separately funded board and travel or training expenditures tied to it.

Several speakers pressed for clearer communication about nominations and timing; the mayor said he takes the appointment responsibility seriously and acknowledged legal constraints such as the state statute cited and the city charter. He also said the new board, when constituted, would include a liaison from the board of mayor and aldermen and that that liaison would be responsible for ensuring information flows to the full board.

With the motion defeated for lack of a second, the board moved on to the next agenda item (item 18). The mayor said he expected the issue to be resolved in the future and reiterated his intent to appoint members at the legally appropriate time.