Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Muncie council to reintroduce transparency ordinance after filing controversy
Summary
Multiple residents and civic groups urged the council to revisit Ordinance 40-25, which would require ordinances and resolutions to be filed by a council member or counsel so sponsors' knowledge is certain; speakers cited a recent incident in which a mayor's office staff reused a prior signature and urged reintroduction in January.
Several residents used public comment at the Dec. 1 Muncie City Council meeting to urge the council to reintroduce Ordinance 40-25, a procedural change that would require ordinances and resolutions to be filed directly by a council member or legal counsel and to ensure a sponsor signs with knowledge and consent.
"I continue to be disappointed," said Ellen Whitehead, a Muncie resident, describing her concern about how Resolution 17-25 was filed previously without the apparent knowledge of the council member listed as sponsor. She urged the council to reintroduce the filing-procedure ordinance in January and said establishing clear standards would build public trust.
Alex Klubler, another resident, called the November vote against Ordinance 40-25 "partisan" and asked the council to reconsider so residents can be confident that an ordinance bearing a council member's name reflects that member's sponsorship and intent.
Linda Hanson, spokesperson for the League of Women Voters in Muncie and Delaware County, summarized the background: the earlier resolution had been filed in October by a mayoral executive assistant using a council member's signature from a prior, withdrawn resolution; the League urged the council to revisit transparency and accountability procedures.
Why it matters: Speakers said the measure addresses procedural transparency and prevents the appearance that the mayor's office or staff can file measures under a council member's name without that member's knowledge. Residents framed the ordinance as nonpartisan common-sense reform to restore trust after a procedural lapse.
Next steps: Several public commenters asked council members to reintroduce the ordinance at the January meeting so the council can vote again.
