Council votes to censure member after heated private email; members split on free‑speech and process

Mayor Pro Tem Tim Schaff moved that the council publicly censure Council member Marsh Holshon for comments in a private email that the mayor pro tem characterized as attacking the city and county manager and violating council standards of conduct. Schaff framed the motion as an action to uphold council rules on respectful communication: "The statements made do not speak to the issue. These statements are a personal attack," he said.

Council member Marshall Holshon (the subject of the censure motion) defended his comments as criticism of the city manager's performance and said he stands behind parts of his email while withdrawing others. He said his intent was to raise concerns about management and that his remarks were not meant to be public. "I have done that," he said, invoking his duty to represent constituents and to speak out when he sees performance issues.

Public comment was broadly divided. Several residents said the dispute should have been handled in private or through established personnel channels and warned against airing personnel matters publicly or using social media. Others supported Holshon’s frankness and said he had raised legitimate concerns about water‑related decisions. Multiple commenters urged conflict resolution or mediation rather than public sanction.

Council discussion was sharply split. Some members argued censure was warranted because the email used inflammatory language about a city employee and undermined council’s working relationships. Others argued that censure would chill elected members’ right to free expression and that the rules cited in the request apply chiefly to in‑meeting conduct. A number of councillors urged a private personnel review or executive‑session discussion instead of public reprimand.

The motion to censure was seconded and put to a roll call vote after extended remarks. The final recorded result, as reported in the meeting transcript, was that the censure motion passed narrowly; the transcript indicated a 5‑4 result with one abstention referenced in the meeting record.

Ending: The censure motion passed by a narrow margin. Several council members urged additional, private personnel discussions and improved conflict‑management processes going forward. The council directed members and staff to consider conflict‑resolution alternatives; a request to schedule a subsequent executive session on personnel matters was discussed but not scheduled at the meeting.