Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Assurances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms compliance with federal assurances, votes to indemnify officials filing federal certifications amid public questions
Summary
The council adopted Resolution 76‑25 to reaffirm compliance with federal assurances and to protect the city manager and staff from personal liability when filing federal assurances and certifications for federal grants and contracts; the measure drew public questions about scope and necessity.
The Columbia City Council adopted Resolution 76‑25 on May 19, a measure staff described as protecting city officials who file required federal assurances and certifications when the city is party to federal grants or contracts.
“City officials are required to file what are known as assurances and certifications whenever the city is party to any federal contract or grant,” a staff representative said in presenting the measure, describing recent federal communications and a letter from the U.S. secretary of transportation as background. “This resolution would protect the city manager or the city manager’s designees from personal liability for engaging in official duties related to filing those financial assurances and certifications.”
Why it matters: Staff told council that federal financial assistance awards now commonly include standard terms and conditions and that some federal agencies have signaled a more aggressive enforcement posture; the resolution also reaffirms the city’s commitment to nondiscrimination and merit‑based personnel policies.
Public comment: Several members of the public asked for more detail and questioned the need and scope of the resolution. Althea Hightower, a Second Ward resident, said she reviewed the materials and asked why the False Claims Act was not referenced and whether the resolution’s language properly described the risk of prosecution or its applicability to non‑manager employees. “I would like to know how that specifically applies to the city manager,” Hightower said, and asked for sources showing the resolution is necessary.
Ken Rice, a resident, likewise asked why extra protection was needed if the city is complying with federal law. “If we're following the law like we're supposed to, what's the need for protection on here?” Rice asked in public comment.
Council discussion: Councilmembers said the item responds to recent federal guidance and is intended to protect staff executing duties on behalf of council. Councilmember Valerie (first name used in the meeting) asked staff to clarify whether calling out specific programs or executive orders was necessary; staff responded that the resolution language reflects legal advice and staff’s judgment about what should be adopted.
Formal action: The council adopted Resolution 76‑25 on a roll call vote (recorded as unanimous in the meeting record). The resolution states that the city will defend, indemnify and hold harmless city officials who in good faith perform duties related to filing federal assurances and certifications and reaffirms the city will not engage in unlawful discriminatory practices.
Follow-up: The council indicated related policy work would continue; staff said a separate policy resolution had been tabled earlier and will return for further council consideration. Several public commenters asked for fuller documentation and legal justification; staff offered to share the complete application packet prepared for related federal programs.
