Memphis City Council amends Jan. 27 minutes after member raises concern; public commenter alleges Open Meetings Act violation
Loading...
Summary
The council voted to amend its Jan. 27 minutes to record an abstention on item 25 after Councilwoman Cooper Sutton asked to rescind her prior approval; a public commenter submitted a statement alleging the recent MLGW appointment and meeting process violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act.
The Memphis City Council on Feb. 3 amended its Jan. 27 meeting minutes to record an abstention on item 25 after Councilwoman Cooper Sutton asked to rescind her earlier approval of that portion of the record.
Vice Chair Carlisle moved to remove item 25 from the minutes and to amend the record to show Councilwoman Yolanda Kukersen’s vote as an abstention; Dr. Warren seconded. The comptroller conducted a roll-call vote and the chair declared the amended minutes approved.
The request to revisit the minutes was prompted by concerns about an MLGW (Memphis Light, Gas and Water) board appointment tied to the Jan. 27 record. Councilwoman Cooper Sutton told the council the appointment item did not include requested information and asked that the single item be revisited.
During the public-comment period the council received a written comment from Pamela Moses, who submitted a card critical of the council’s handling of the MLGW appointment and the meeting notice. Moses alleged the meeting was conducted in violation of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act and said the council excluded the public from a virtual meeting while allowing members to access the meeting by Zoom. She further alleged a qualified applicant, identified as Glenda Hicks, was bypassed in favor of a more recent applicant, identified as Kevin Woods. Moses wrote: “This is insider politics, and it raises civil rights and governance concerns.”
A clerk began reading Moses’s comment into the record. Vice Chair Carlisle interrupted the reading and said the portion being read would be gaveled out; the council did not engage in extended discussion of the allegations on the Feb. 3 meeting record.
The chair and council proceeded to other agenda business. The council did not announce any formal response, investigation, or referral tied to the public comment during the meeting.
What’s next: The amended Jan. 27 minutes will stand as changed unless the council takes additional action; the public comment alleging Open Meetings Act violations remains on the record as submitted.
