Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Disbursements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edison council debates withholding Vision Media payments; separation motion fails, bill list approved
Summary
Council debated removing Vision Media payments from the disbursement list amid concerns over a mailer; council voted down the motion to separate Vision Media payments and subsequently approved the full bill list (Resolution 565).
A motion to remove payments to Vision Media from the township disbursement list failed at the Sept. 25 Edison Township Council meeting, after which the council approved Resolution 565 (the bill list) as presented.
Councilmember Brasher raised concerns about a mailer distributed earlier and moved to pull Vision Media line items from the disbursement list pending answers from the administration. Brasher said he believed taxpayer funds had been used for politically driven mailings and said he did not want to authorize payments to Vision Media "until we get all the answers." The council debated whether a single item could be removed from a bill list and whether doing so would withhold payment for services already rendered.
Legal and administrative staff noted past practice varies; some council members said they had asked for supporting documentation at Monday's meeting and had not received it. Council discussion referenced past practice on separating items and the mechanics for handling the division of the question.
A motion to remove Vision Media payments and place them on a separate resolution (to be numbered R587) was made and seconded but failed on roll call (Brasher Yes; Coyle No; Harris No; Patil Yes; Appointer Yes; Schmuel No; President Patel No). The council then voted to approve Resolution 565 (the bill list) with the Vision Media payments included.
Public commenters during that agenda item alleged political uses of township communication funds and criticized the administration; one speaker suggested Vision Media payments should be covered by the mayor's campaign fund. Councilmembers said they were not seeking to withhold legitimate payment for completed services but wanted further detail before future payments.
The failed separation motion and the subsequent approval of the bill list close the matter for now, but several councilmembers asked the administration to provide the requested documentation ahead of the next meeting.
