Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Percival council splits as appointments, closed-session bid ignite accusations
Summary
A sharply divided Percival Town Council approved minutes and multiple appointments but failed to move into the planned closed session on the police chief selection, triggering accusations about backroom deals and campaign donations during a heated debate.
The Percival Town Council voted 4–3 to approve minutes from a June budget work session and then moved through a series of line‑by‑line appointments to town advisory boards amid repeated accusations of backroom deals and procedural unfairness.
Council member Stout moved the minutes' approval and, after debate about whether a supermajority is required for tax actions, the motion passed 4–3 (vote recorded at the dais). The council then considered a lengthy set of appointments to the planning commission, parks and rec and economic development advisory board; some motions passed while others drew vocal objections from minority members who said straw-poll outcomes were being ignored.
Tensions rose when a speaker alleged a donor had contributed $84,400 to influence appointments. One council member responded that the figure is public record and can be confirmed in campaign finance reports. “That’s public record,” one council member said in rebuttal. Critics called the exchange evidence of secrecy; supporters said candidates were vetted in interviews and that closed-session deliberations had shaped recommendations.
The meeting reached a flash point when the council voted on whether to convene a closed session to discuss candidates for the police chief position and receive legal advice. The motion to go into closed session failed after several members voted against it, prompting an extended procedural dispute and requests that the town attorney provide legal guidance in closed session. A later motion to consent to the appointment of Sarah Lambrania as chief of police was made but the council did not complete the planned closed session or reach a final, fully litigated outcome before the meeting ended.
Mayor and council members said they preferred written legal advice or additional closed‑session discussion; opponents argued that declining to receive the attorney’s oral advice risked negligence. The council left the meeting without resolving whether the chief appointment would proceed immediately or be reconsidered after additional legal counsel.
The appointments and the closed-session disagreement spotlighted ongoing fault lines over transparency, process and the balance between public interview processes and private deliberation. The council scheduled follow-up agenda items and asked staff to return with clarifications on procedures and any outstanding appointments.
