Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterboard Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clarksburg council advances waterboard charter changes amid legal warnings and public protests
Summary
After hours of public comment and legal back-and-forth, Clarksburg City Council advanced multiple charter amendments that would alter how the Clarksburg Water Board is governed — including changes to term start dates, succession rules, term limits and a voter-driven recall process — even as waterboard advocates warned the moves could trigger costly litigation under West Virginia law.
Clarksburg City Council voted on a package of proposed charter amendments affecting the Clarksburg Water Board after an extended public hearing and council debate.
The measures the council advanced would move the commencement date for mayoral, council and waterboard terms from July 1 to June 1, change the waterboard succession procedure to automatically seat the highest unsuccessful vote-getter when a vacancy occurs, establish term limits for waterboard members and add a voter-driven recall process for waterboard members. Council members recorded motions and carried the measures after public hearings.
Why it matters: Dozens of residents and at least three current or former waterboard officials addressed the council during the hearing, arguing the amendments are intended to increase accountability after years of infrastructure problems and public complaints. Opponents — including waterboard members and elected officials — warned that piecemeal changes could be unlawful and invite litigation that would burden taxpayers.
Legal dispute and counsel’s view: Tim Strango, a longtime municipal attorney, told the council that West Virginia Code 8-12-3 (as cited in the hearing record) vests an established independent water board with “complete and exclusive jurisdiction” and that only abolition or a proper charter amendment could lawfully change that status. City Attorney Richard Marsh acknowledged the statute cited has not been authoritatively interpreted by the state’s high court and said the council’s approach involves a legal gray area that may be decided by judges if challenged.
Public voices: Waterboard member Chad Sigman, speaking as an individual, urged the council to pause action and engage the waterboard in discussions before adopting governance changes, saying the board was not given an opportunity for advance dialogue. Several residents, including letter writers read into the record, urged voters be allowed to decide the changes at referendum.
Council reasoning and votes: Supporters said the measures restore accountability and would be subject to ratification by voters when required; opponents raised concerns about proceeding during an ongoing, multi-million-dollar infrastructure project and about the risk of duplicative litigation costs for the city and the waterboard. The council carried the related ordinances in recorded votes after debate. Specific vote tallies and further implementation details were discussed on the record but may require legal clarification if challenged.
What happens next: Where the ordinances require a referendum, the measures will be placed before Clarksburg voters as described in the ordinances. The council and staff acknowledged additional legal and fiscal analysis may be necessary, and several members urged waiting for the newly seated council where appropriate.
