Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Ethics Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keene mayor accuses council of undermining her after Sept. 25 meeting; attorney says no law was broken
Summary
Mayor Parrish opened the Nov. 6 meeting accusing council members and staff of undermining her and violating the spirit of open-government rules after a contentious Sept. 25 session that drew TV coverage. Residents and council members traded accusations about who contacted Channel 8; the city attorney said her office found no illegal actions.
Mayor Parrish opened the Keene City Council meeting on Nov. 6 by pressing colleagues to explain why citizens and the news media had criticized the council’s conduct after a September meeting.
"As mayor, I feel that the council members and staff have continually tried to undermine my authority," Parrish said, calling for greater transparency and adherence to the Texas Open Meetings Act. She said the Sept. 25 meeting "was not our finest hour" and told members their behavior concerned residents and risked repeating past mistakes.
The exchange moved into public comment, where residents disputed who had contacted television station Channel 8 about the Sept. 25 meeting. Vincent Castro said he had told Channel 8 what happened and that he intends to "make sure that a judge decides whether or not it was legal" (as he put it). Others, including Samantha Gillen, who said she has lived in Keene about 21 years and runs a local business, disputed the mayor’s characterization of the earlier meeting: "That meeting... it was not what you said, Lisa," Gillen said, contesting assertions that the mayor pro tem had been prevented from speaking.
City Attorney (name not read into the record) told the council during public comment that "our office opined that there was nothing illegal or outside of your ordinances or statutes that occurred on September 25." That legal opinion was cited repeatedly by council members who urged the meeting be treated as part of the record and handled through the minutes-review process.
Councilmembers and residents also criticized the public airing of the dispute. Ray Johnson, a local business owner, warned that continuing conflict and news attention could damage the city’s reputation and business climate.
The council permitted late public-comment speakers by motion and agreed to have the city secretary review recordings and return with any necessary corrections to the minutes from Sept. 25. No new formal disciplinary actions or policy changes were adopted at the Nov. 6 meeting; the attorney’s opinion and the city secretary’s upcoming minutes review were the principal official outcomes.
The city’s references to open-records and Open Meetings Act procedures were discussed publicly at length; the council directed staff to verify the minutes against recordings and bring proposed corrections back at a later meeting for formal approval.
