Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cherokee Village council tables ordinance to allow council members to contract with city
Summary
Council debated an ordinance that would explicitly permit Council member Heather Harrison to conduct business with Cherokee Village and then voted to table the measure pending further review of state and municipal rules on conflicts of interest.
Council members on Cherokee Village’s City Council voted Sept. 19 to table Ordinance 2024‑02, a proposal that would expressly permit council members to do business with the city and declare an emergency in its implementation. The ordinance was introduced to allow Council member Heather Harrison to contract with the city under a defined set of terms, but discussion focused on potential conflicts of interest and statutory limits.
The measure prompted extended debate over whether a council member could be permitted to perform exclusive services for the city or be treated as one of several vendors offering the same service. Council member Heather Harrison said she had asked about whether she could perform contract work for the city and expressed willingness to follow legal guidance: “I just want to be clear that you know when I found out they were going to do bids for the city I started asking questions to be completely transparent,” she said. Harrison also requested written guidance and told the council she would welcome clarification about what is allowed.
City attorney Mr J read the relevant municipal code for the record, explaining that a council member, alderman or municipal employee “shall be interested directly or indirectly in the profits of any contract for furnishing supplies, equipment or services to the municipality unless the governing body of a city has enacted an ordinance specifically permitting [it] and prescribing the extent of that authority.” The reading framed much of the subsequent discussion about precedent and whether an ordinance should authorize this specific instance.
Opponents raised concerns about fairness and the appearance of preferential treatment if an elected official were allowed to provide services that the city otherwise procures through competitive bids. One council member suggested tabling the ordinance until a work session could examine the legal issues and potential procurement process changes; that motion was seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote.
The council recorded the motion to table and voted by roll call in favor; the ordinance was tabled for later review. The mayor and staff said the topic will be revisited in a future work meeting and that staff would gather municipal‑league guidance and any applicable state rules before taking further action.
