Resident demands release of city financial records as council and mayor clash over transparency

The Margaret City Council opened a specially called work session on May 2 to review financial reports and prep for the council meeting, but public comment and repeated questions about records took center stage.

Resident Gary Hbert, who identified himself during public comment, pressed the council for production of a wide range of documents — “all communications from the mayor, the council, between the council members and between the clerk and their council” including emails, texts and social-media messages — and said he intends to publish the records online. He warned that fire-rescue equipment problems had left the city “one mechanical issue away from our last remaining apparatus” and said citizens should be able to “make our own judgment” once records are public.

Mayor (speaking throughout the session) answered with a multi-point accounting of the city’s recent finances and a description of steps taken to make records available. The mayor said the city moved primary accounts from Truist to Metro Bank, which now pays about 1% interest, and that the administration had posted bank statements, check-detail reports and audit materials online: “I put five years of bank statements, credit-card statements, every transaction — everything — every piece of money, every account when it was created, when it was ended,” the mayor said.

Council members repeatedly pressed for more current, line-item documentation. At various points during the meeting, members asked for canceled checks, lists of employee hires and salaries, credit-card transaction logs, and itemized vendor payments covering 2025–2026. Council members said some files in the shared folder were not fully uploaded and noted that certain account statements began only in January or after the city moved to Metro Bank. That uncertainty fueled accusations that “$1.4 million” in spending had occurred without the council’s prior approval, a figure repeatedly referenced in questions to the mayor.

The mayor responded that much of the requested material had been provided to council members by email and posted in a shared folder; the administration said uploads were continuing and that some apparent gaps were caused by newly created accounts or file-organization issues, not missing records. The mayor also framed some disputed expenditures as holdover bills and authorized payments for operational necessities (vehicles, a police-station setup, and public-works equipment) that reduced a previously reported balance of roughly $6.6 million to about $4.724 million.

Council members said they will follow up with more specific requests and legal clarifications. The meeting did not produce a final council vote on records release; work-session discussion continued into the regular council meeting and several related agenda items were deferred for additional documentation and attorney input.

The mayor encouraged council members and the public to review posted materials and audit reports for verification, and said the administration would continue uploading statements and supporting documents ahead of the Monday engineer presentation about a proposed fire station.

The next procedural step is for council members to identify outstanding items they cannot find in the shared folder and, if necessary, for the council to seek formal legal advice about records production and any outstanding compliance questions.