Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CEIDC debates discipline for James Gentry; motions fail, item carried
Summary
Board members debated applying city policy to James Gentry and considered a verbal reprimand and a two-week unpaid suspension, but confusion over votes and a lack of an affirmative majority meant no action was taken and the matter was placed on the next agenda.
At a CEIDC meeting, board members considered whether to apply the city’s policy to James Gentry and debated two disciplinary motions: a conditional recommendation for a verbal reprimand and a motion to place Gentry on a two-week unpaid suspension. The board did not adopt either action and carried the matter to a future agenda.
The meeting record shows Unidentified Speaker 3 moved that the city’s policy be applied to CEIDC and that, once verification establishes a violation, the board recommend a verbal reprimand for Mr. Gentry. Unidentified Speaker 2 seconded the later, separate motion to place James Gentry "on suspension without pay for 2 weeks for violations of policy and bylaws." The transcript records the text of the suspension motion: "I move that James Gentry be placed on suspension without pay for 2 weeks for violations of policy and bylaws."
Board members then sought clarification on which motion was on the floor and attempted to tally votes. Several speakers described different counts during the roll call: one member stated "it's 2 to 2 at this point with 1 abstention," while later exchanges referenced a 3-to-3 split. Unidentified Speaker 4 summarized the effect of those tallies by noting that, because there was not an affirmative majority, the motions failed and "no action taken." The chair directed that the item be placed on the next agenda.
The discussion also included a factual dispute about whether a city official named Mr. Jitchell had "adopted" the city policy in full or only partly; members referenced the question of policy adoption as part of determining whether a violation had occurred. The transcript does not contain a named defense by Mr. Gentry or a formal finding that he violated policy; the motions were conditional on verification and no formal discipline was enacted that day.
What happens next is procedural: the CEIDC will revisit the matter at a subsequent meeting. The transcript does not specify a date for the follow-up agenda item, the exact vote tally by member name, or any formal finding of misconduct.
