Ripley aldermen debate proposal to create independent 5-member Ripley Power & Light board

Ripley aldermen debated a proposal to amend the city charter and create a five-member independent board to operate Ripley Power & Light, but legal counsel said provisions in the draft are not properly included in a charter amendment and the meeting ended with discussion but no recorded ratifying vote.

The proposed change would have removed Ripley Power & Light from general city department oversight and created an independent utility board “to supervise and oversee Ripley Power and Light pursuant to Tennessee Municipal Electric Plant Law of 1935,” according to the motion read into the record by Alderman Alston. The motion also named the mayor as the appointing authority and called for one member to be a member of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, subject to consent.

The city attorney told the board the specific provisions that set board size and membership are governed by separate state statutory provisions and are not properly included in a Private Act charter amendment; she advised the inclusion of membership rules in the draft made the motion improper. The attorney also noted that, under current state law and the 1935 municipal electric plant statute cited in the discussion, appointees’ terms and the timing of seating are governed by statute and that newly appointed members typically do not take office until July 1 following appointment.

The debate also revisited a prior history of litigation and records disputes: one speaker summarized that years earlier Ripley had sued its power department after records were not provided and that an audit found an undisclosed, roughly quarter-million-dollar bonus paid to a utility superintendent. That history was cited by aldermen who said the board had previously voted down similar charter changes three times and urged caution about creating an independent entity with corporate-like standing.

Aldermen and the mayor discussed practical effects and timing. City counsel warned that sending a draft with membership provisions to the General Assembly months ahead of its January session could expose the proposal to lengthy work in committee without a guarantee of ratification at the local level later; ratification of a private act typically requires a later local vote and possibly a supermajority. Aldermen also debated who would nominate and seat members and noted the mayor has the statutory nomination role.

The motion to amend the charter (item 16) was moved and seconded and discussed; legal counsel ruled that the draft, as written, included improper membership provisions and therefore was not a proper charter amendment. The meeting then moved to a separate motion (item 17) to establish a five-member independent utility board; that motion was seconded and drew further discussion about timing, statutory July 1 start dates for terms, and whether mayoral nominations would control membership. The transcript ends with discussion; no confirming vote on establishing the independent board was recorded in the provided transcript.

Why it matters: governance of the municipal electric utility affects procurement, transparency, liability and long-term control of a city-owned asset. Aldermen raised concerns about past record-keeping, legal exposure and the proper statutory route to change governance.

Voices and context: Alderman Alston led the motion to amend the charter and to create an independent board. The city attorney repeatedly advised the board about statutory limits and the proper drafting pathway. Miss Shaw, described to the board as a consultant who previously guided nomination processes, told aldermen that nominations for utility board members come from the mayor and that those nomination procedures are governed by state law rather than by a charter amendment. Other aldermen, including Thompson and Frazier, recounted past votes and the prior litigation history that prompted caution.

Next steps: The board did not record a final vote on creating the independent five-member board during the provided transcript. Any formal charter amendment that proceeds would have to be rewritten to remove membership provisions or follow the statutory pathway indicated by counsel and then be sent to the General Assembly for consideration; a subsequent local ratifying vote would be required if the legislature enacted a private act.