Well, that didn’t last long.
McComb selectmen, meeting at full strength Tuesday night after Selectman Michael Cameron’s absence on March 13, rescinded a change to city policy on employee participation in elections and a spending boost at two city parks made at that March 13 meeting.
Mayor Whitney Rawlings put both matters on Tuesday’s agenda for reconsideration. Selectman Donovan Hill had placed the election matter on the March 13 agenda, and succeeded in adding the park money, $200,000 for Algiers and Baertown facilities, to the agenda during the meeting.
“Our form of government does not allow me to veto,” Rawlings said, as he introduced the election matter for rescission.
“I don’t believe you understand the pressure you are putting our employees under. I believe this change opens them up to threats or retribution, either open or implied.”
The policy change last month removed the city’s hourly employees from a prohibition on supporting candidates in city elections, leaving only department heads and other salaried workers under the ban.
Selectman Albert Eubanks returned to a concern he voiced at the previous meeting about whether the spouses or other close relations of city employees can openly voice their support for a candidate or issue.
“I believe that would be allowed,” board attorney Wayne Dowdy said. Prohibiting non-employees “would be easily defeated if it went to court.”
“If the wife puts out a sign where they cohabitate, it’s OK?” Eubanks asked.
“If it’s truly an independent action, they would be able to participate in the electoral process,” Dowdy replied.
Hill and Selectman Ronnie Brock questioned the propriety of the question’s return for consideration.
Hill pointed to Robert’s Rules of Order, the board’s guide to parliamentary procedure, saying the rules call for a member of the voting majority on the question to call for its reconsideration. Brock said the matter’s inclusion on the agenda did not constitute proper notice of the matter’s reconsideration under Robert’s Rules, and therefore the matter should be considered out of order.
Dowdy advised that the procedural rule Hill cited applied only to the original meeting where the vote was taken, and that anyone could bring the matter for discussion and action at a subsequent meeting.
As to Brock’s objection, Dowdy said if the agenda was available to the board before the meeting, that would constitute sufficient notice.
Selectman Ted Tullos attacked from the other direction, citing a Supreme Court ruling from the 1930s that allowed employers to cover employees’ spouses or other family members under such policies.
“I believe I’m right,” Dowdy said. “If (a family member) makes an independent decision to support a candidate, they have a First Amendment right to do so, and I think that’s consistent with what you read.”
Eubanks pointed out the difficulty the city would have in proving that a decision such as placing a candidate’s yard sign was not independent.
“Are we going to be secret police and wiretap their houses, trying to see what an employee says to his wife?” he asked.
Hill and Brock continued to push their interpretations of the procedural rules, but Rawlings called for the vote, which resulted in 3-3 tie — Brock, Eubanks and Cameron against, and Tullos, Cameron and Selectman Tommy McKenzie for. Rawlings broke the tie to rescind the change to the policy.
Moving on to the allocation of $200,000 from the city’s hotel tax proceeds to Algiers and Baertown parks, Rawlings noted that the matter had been broached and voted down twice before Hill pushed the matter through in Cameron’s absence.
“I had told you before that that the recreation director was developing a plan for all the city’s parks, and we have that now,” Rawlings said. “I want you to look at this plan and see what you want to do as a board. If you allocate that money to Algiers and Baertown without considering the needs of all of the parks, it’s the wrong thing to do.”
Brock and Eubanks again insisted that the matter was out of order, and Hill said Rawlings had committed to building the parks in Algiers and Baertown and including items that have not yet been provided, including parking lots and splash pads.
“You are wrongfully rescinding this money that you promised these constituents you would spend,” Hill said, pointing again to his interpretation of Robert’s Rules. “Your intention is to spend money where your interests are.”
Hill said studies have shown that much crime comes out of areas with few recreational facilities and activities, and that the white, Republican selectmen and mayor did not care about reducing crime.
He also noted that the black, Democratic members of the board had supported such initiatives as the Parklane Road improvements and asked, “When are the Republicans going to support us? ... How do you sleep at night knowing you are going to deny money to another community of color?”
The park vote resulted in the same split, with Rawlings breaking the tie to rescind the allocation.
Rawlings later presented the recreation director’s findings on needs in the city’s leisure facilities and a rundown of expected revenues and expenditures for the department’s budget.
“If (the board) wants to spend all that money on Algiers and Baertown, that’s fine,” Rawlings said. “I want you to bring a plan you can agree on, and I’ll put it on the docket for April.”
The top of the list of recommendations was $80,000 each for the Algiers and Baertown parks. Hill was incredulous. “You just took this money away,” he said.
Hill and Rawlings reiterated their positions, with Hill saying the importance given to the Algiers and Baertown parks in the recommendations means the allocation should not have been rescinded. Rawlings continued to insist that the board should consider needs across the city and collectively decide where the money is best spent.
The debates and reactions resulted in the ousters of two audience members.
Rawlings directed police Chief Scott McKenzie to escort Vernell Simmons from the meeting room after an audible reaction to board proceedings during the election rule debate.
Hill objected, saying Rawlings employed a double standard on removing people from the room.
“When people spoke out in favor of you without being recognized, you didn’t have them removed,” Hill said.
Simmons, chair of the municipal Democratic executive committee, gave the board a parting shot on the way out, grabbing onto Hill’s arguments about the procedural rules.
“It’s no wonder you have problems ... You don’t even follow your own rules,” Simmons said.
Later, as the board discussed the recreation recommendations, an audible reaction from Ward 3 selectman candidate Devante Johnson resulted in Rawlings calling for his removal.
