Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment Civic Concern topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Local resident criticizes council response to Cuff family case during public comment

3615356 · May 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Fountain resident used the public comment period to criticize the mayor and council for how they handled comments by the Cuff family at a prior meeting; council members reiterated limits on council authority during active court proceedings and said staff and the chief had met with the family.

During the public comment period on May 27, Fountain resident Al Linder criticized the mayor and the council for how they handled a previous meeting in which the Cuff family spoke about an ongoing neighborhood legal matter.

Linder said he felt council lacked compassion and urged the mayor to resign: “I wish you'd resign,” he told the council, and added, “I wish you'd go, and I wish the next 4 years you lose.” Linder also said he was “ashamed” that council members did not “stand up and fought for that woman,” and singled out one council member, saying “he's the one that saved the day.”

Council response and limits of authority: Mayor Thompson acknowledged the emotional nature of the matter, said the chief of police and city attorney had met with the family and that the city has limited authority because the issue is subject to a court process. The mayor said, “We are the legislative body. We are not the judge body, and we are not gonna cross that line,” and urged patience with the legal process. Council member Evans added the city would continue to bring resources to address the problem and said “we're not done either.”

Why it matters: the comments reflect local frustration about an ongoing court matter that residents raised at prior meetings. Council repeatedly emphasized that, because the matter is in court, the council must not act as judge or jury and that staff will continue to coordinate with appropriate agencies and provide follow‑up where possible.

No formal action was taken in response to the public comment during this meeting.