Public comments press council on minutes, transcripts, fireworks and legal disclosure
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Public commenters raised safety concerns about M‑80 fireworks and delayed police response, questioned whether YouTube captions are legally binding for minutes, and disputed budget line items. Mayor Massey and staff reiterated DOJ guidance that minutes need not be verbatim and noted litigation can limit document release.
Several members of the public used the visitor‑comment period to press the council on transparency and public‑safety concerns.
Nancy Whitney recounted New Year’s Eve incidents involving high‑power fireworks (M‑80s) that vibrated windows and said she waited hours for a callback from police because of limited staffing. "We had only two people on duty that night," she said, describing delayed responses and unsuccessful attempts to reach the mayor by phone.
Other speakers, including Adam St. Pierre and Steven Toske, challenged statements made during earlier meetings about budget line items and contractor statements. A citizen claimed a $300,000 tourism revenue figure was inaccurately described; staff responded that the budget committee had proposed $300,000 but city staff had planned conservatively for $100,000 in realized revenue.
On recordkeeping and transcripts, staff cited the Oregon Department of Justice guidance that meeting minutes need not be a verbatim transcript and noted the city uses a separate transcription service and manual editing rather than relying on YouTube closed captions for official minutes.
Mayor Massey also addressed repeated public calls for release of a redacted report tied to litigation, saying she was not personally withholding materials but that attorney–client privilege and work‑product protections can lawfully prevent disclosure while litigation is active.
Council directed that formal responses to visitor comments would be published in the next regular session packet as required by process.