Board size discussed by council, water board

Increasing the size of the Enterprise Water Board from three to five members was among issues discussed at the Enterprise City Council at a strategic planning meeting held March 15.

The meeting was the second quarterly planning session held this year for council and the mayor to share perceptions and opinions—outside the parameters of twice monthly work sessions or council meeting—about the state of the city and goals moving forward into the next three months.

A recreational complex, streets and sidewalks, an entertainment district, more “business friendly” business license ordinances and city hall renovation were among the priorities that emerged from the strategic planning session Jan. 20.

The status of each of those priorities was outlined at the March 15 meeting and goals for the second quarter of 2022 were discussed and water board governance was also discussed. It has been a city council discussion topic since 2019.

The Enterprise Water Board has three members. City Councilman Eugene Goolsby is one of the three water board members. The other two are John L. Mitchell and Ben Beckham Jr.

“I think this needs to be a priority,” Goolsby said at the council strategic planning meeting held Jan. 20, about increasing the number of water board members to five. Goolsby reiterated what he has said multiple times that with only three members, should one be absent there is still a quorum and the matter could be voted upon. “One person could make a motion, the other could second the motion, both could vote on the motion and it is a done deal,” he has reiterated. “I think it is important for more than two people to be making decisions for the water board.”

As a case in point, Goolsby said that with Mitchell absent from a Dec. 7, 2021 water board meeting, the two members present voted on a resolution which added a $5.50 per month fee increase to each residential water meter and a $20 per month fee increase to all commercial water meters. “This decision, affecting our entire city, was made by only two board members,” he said.

“During our past administration, I presented to the city council and the water board that, in my opinion, the water board should have five members instead of three,” Goolsby said in a Jan. 18 written communication to the city council and water board members. “The city council at that time agreed with me. The matter was never acted upon by the water board at that time.”

At a city council meeting Feb. 15, Goolsby again brought up the issue of increasing the water board size and at the water board meeting the next day, Feb. 16, he brought the issue up again. “Last night at city council meeting it was discussed extensively—as I have brought up in the past—about the water board being changed from three members to five and all the council members have agreed that they would like to see that happen,” Goolsby said. He added that any change had to initiate with the water board. “So I am really looking for your feelings and see what you think,” he told the two other water board members.

“I want to make a couple of comments here,” said Mitchell, adding that he had received Goolsby’s email communication about increasing the size of the water board. “When it was brought up before, there was a lot going on in the city—a lot of a mess of financials and things like that. I don’t think it ever came to a vote but when you brought it up again, I assumed we would discuss it at this meeting.

“I cannot express my displeasure and disappointment in being talked to and about through the media,” Mitchell told Goolsby, apparently referring to a Feb. 2 article in The Southeast Sun headlined “Increase water board number, Goolsby urges.”

“I assumed it would be discussed at the next meeting and the next week I get up and I read the paper and (I am) being called out for not wanting more members on the water board—and I want to make sure this is properly said, I think you said I ‘don’t understand the importance of adding people to the water board.’

“One thing I’ve always enjoyed about this board is that we’ve been very open with each other. We have communicated very well as a board and to take our business and talk to other members of the board through the media was pretty disappointing,” Mitchell said. “To be talked about ‘not understanding things’ in the media was pretty disappointing and my personal opinion is, regardless of what we are discussing, to take it to the public like that and the way it was said—or the way I read it—was a misrepresentation of this board. And I don’t think it represented the water department as a whole to our employees very well either.

“So (as to) my opinion of adding more members of the water board, I’ve never voted against it. I’ve never spoke out against it. I think that it’s something we definitely need to discuss and if I remember correctly, when this came up before (City Attorney Rainer Cotter) did some research and I think we may be at the point where we need to do more research.

“So if that’s where we are, I’m fine with moving forward with that and I know we discussed before (a recommendation) has to come from the water board. So the way we’re set up now, one of you two would have to make a motion, the other would second it,” Mitchell said. “But I would just ask, going forward if we have something to say to each other, let’s say it in here. Let’s don’t use the media as a way to talk to each other.”

“I’m sorry you feel that way because I certainly didn’t mean for it to come out that way,” Goolsby said. “We had discussed it in the past. We had discussed it in the council meeting when that letter came out. That letter was passed out at the council meeting before it went to the media.”

“I apologize if we ever led you or anybody to believe that it was not important or a bad idea,” said Beckham. “But the timing was bad, real bad. I’ll just say that—and that was the opinion of a lot of people when this whole thing got started and it looked like the city council wanted to put more members on the water board as to swing a vote.

“I do believe the timing was bad (when the issue was first brought up) and I don’t believe the timing is bad now. But y’all (the city council) are going through a lot of pitfalls and I’ll just say, challenges, that we’ve all read about—but again I agree with John (Mitchell) and he pretty much speaks for me in everything he just said. I don’t think it’s a bad idea.”

City Administrator Jonathan Tullos confirmed that Cotter had researched the law involving restructuring municipal boards and asked the water board for direction on what they wanted the city to pursue.

“I don’t know what everybody’s (board appointment) terms are but I know that when Ben (Beckham) and I both came on (Dec. 4, 2012), we came on at the same time,” Mitchell said. “And neither one of us knew what in the world was going on with anything and that’s a bad idea. Whether we’re at five or 105 members, you’ve got to stagger terms.”

Goolsby suggested that if the board member number increased, new appointees should not be city council members. “The water board is operated totally separate from the city council and I think having one representative from the city council is all you need,” he said.

Mitchell agreed. “When we talked about this before, I had phone calls from people speaking out against having multiple city council people on the water board. With that said, how do we need to move forward?” Tullos said that he would get with Cotter to have an ordinance prepared for the water board’s consideration.

“I think the council has made our decision,” City Council President Turner Townsend said after the council discussed the issue at the March 15 strategic planning session. “We want to expand it to five water board members. The water board will have to come up with a resolution to ask council to expand—the first appointment will serve four years, second one for six years and then they will go to six year appointments.”

Following the financial report at the water board meeting the next day Tullos briefed the water board on the council discussion and asked Cotter to outline procedure to change the articles of incorporation.

“The process starts here,” Cotter said. “The water board would have to pass a resolution to ask the city council to approve an amendment to the certificate of incorporation for that purpose and then it would go to the city council and they would act to record the amended certificate.”

“We have not finished with the financials,” Mitchell replied, without comment on what Tullos and Cotter had said.

The water board did not discuss or act on the matter. The meeting adjourned.

The next meeting of the Enterprise Water Board is Tuesday, April 19, at noon in the mayor’s conference room at Enterprise City Hall. The meeting is open to the public.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.