HIghlights from Council

City Council met last night and adopted two resolutions, heard presentations from the City's auditor and the  Library's Annual Report. Discussions were also held on the continuation of the Deadwood trail project, and an agenda item from Julie Young on four points.


There were no big surprises on most of the items. One resolution makes the temporary parking situation on the south side of Jackson Street at the high school a permanent fixture to the street. It includes painting the curb and setting 45 degree lines that conform to existing city ordinances. Dr. Hakonson, Superintendent of the Sidney Public Schools spoke on behalf of the project.

The other resolution that was adopted was for payment of services rendered from contractor IPT and project engineer Olsson Associates for work rendered in connection with the Waste Water Treatment Project. According to the engineers, the project should startup during the second week of March. The resolution approved payment of $290,303.11 and $12,737.42 to the contractor and engineering firm, respectively.

City Council took up the issue of whether or not to continue the Deadwood Trail project. Members of the public and various boards spoke in favor of the project's continuation, citing benefits in health and potential commerce activities from hotel guests at the trail's termination behind the Comfort Inn. There was discussion on what the cost savings would look like, if the project were terminated, vs continuing. Councilman Hiatt spoke about the need to capture the grant money, or else risking the loss of it to a different locality. The discussion was ended and a motion to continue the project was made, seconded and passed. This writer made a point of order and informed council that parliamentary rules provide that discussions on topics are appropriate only after a motion, second, are made to discuss a particular topic, with a vote on the question after debate is exhausted.

Publisher's Note: The council routinely takes up business, in reverse order, discussing, then calling a motion. Roberts Rules of Order indicates that a main motion (agenda item) be made and seconded. Once the second is obtained, the chair asks for comment, if none exists, he may call the question or ask for a vote. Debate may be restricted to a certain length of time by special motions, or ended by someone of the assembly (Council member) who moves to "call the previous question." Calling the previous question requires a 2/3rds vote or four council men as it cuts off future debate. If successful a vote on the measure immediately follows on the actual item.


Gary Person, in his report said that a company with good prospects for bringing jobs to Sidney would make an announcement in the coming week or so. The unnamed company appears to be affiliated with the green energy movement. An announcement should be forth coming.

Julie Young spoke at length on four issues of concern to her. Thanking the council for their service first, she asked pointed questions about what she perceived to be violations of the Open Meetings Act. Her allegations came from citing two meetings in May, 2009 where closed sessions were called for the purpose of discussing personnel issues or matters. Those meetings, involved the question of whether or not to retain outside counsel. Young (and her husband Dave) questioned the need to go into executive session to discuss the need for outside counsel, when no pending litigation was apparent. The question  somehow got confused with the contents of the second meeting's reason of personnel issues, apparently involving a different person.

According to state law, the seeking of additional counsel in a closed session for a legal matter not imminent may be an improper use of a closed meeting, given no need for one could be stated requiring that kind of urgency. If true, a person could petition to hold the results of such a meeting void, if any policy decisions made in closed session. Comment from council members, including Dalan Hiatt seemed to suggest that the selection of a specific attorney was done in public, rather than closed session.

Young also brought up a question of council interference with a city employee. She accused a member of the council of requesting the personnel file of a city employee who spoke at the January 12th meeting. Discussion eventually revealed that the employee's file was never requested, but an explanation of how his position was created was requested of the city attorney. Van Vleet stated the information was provided to him by the City Manager. Mayor Wiederspon and Van Vleet repeatedly asked Young, why would they need to see any employee's file. Van Vleet said he didn't need to see it (personnel file), nor did he want to. Gary Person corroborated the dialogue between Van Vleet and himself. According to Person, the turn over in the electrical department was a concern and the creation of a highly skilled lead position was seen as something that would provide an anchor for the other people, hopefully reducing turnover. In separate comment today, Julie Young said she regretted the using the term personnel file, attributing the phrase to her being nervous standing at the podium.

Jo Houser, City HR manager stood and said she didn't think that anyone should have any question about her involvement with Palmer's hire, or his career with the city, stating that she never had anything to do with any aspect of his jobs, interviews, etc. Houser is the mother of Palmer. Members of the gallery clapped upon the conclusion of Houser's comments.

Publisher's Note: This publication obtained the job description for Palmer based on comments left on this site, naming Palmer as a target of an unnamed councilman for speaking at previous council meetings. The request was used as background in understanding what the position entailed, in order to ask intelligent questions about the skills required to do the job Palmer holds, if necessary. The request was routed through appropriate channels within City government and its affiliates and was subsequently released to this publication. According to Houser's statement in an email to theguardiannews dated February 4th, "We determined that it didn't serve any purpose in denying your request."

Young completed her question session with details about the lack of disclosure forms by Councilman Filsinger and Van Vleet. She brought up details of services payments from each, noting that Van Vleet's last disclosure form was signed in 1993. Gary Person interjected that the rules governing those forms were changed in 2006 and Councilman Van Vleet was not party to those changes as he was not a sitting councilman at the time the changes were made. According to the discussions, the updated forms should either be competed or are due to be complete as soon as possible.

Councilman Van Vleet, noted that his bill to the city was done at cost, noting if it were a commercial job, it would have cost approximately $3,000 instead of the $900 billed to the city. Visibly upset at the tone of the question, Van Vleet offered to make it simple and said he would refuse to do future business with the city, offering to put a sign up in his window stating that fact.

Young told Councilman Filsinger that in a previous council meeting that he offered to correct a drainage problem at the FedEx site, but yet subsequently charged the city more than $17,000 for work at the site. Filsinger explained that he told Council that there would be no charge for his personal time and effort, but materials, equipment and the wages of his people were submitted. The amount billed to the city was under the no-bit limit established in city ordinances and did not need to be bid out. Filsinger said that if he did not perform the service, it would have cost significantly more to the city.

The atmosphere was a fairly charged one during Young's session. David Young, husband of the speaker, spoke about the need to ensure that the meetings and discussions are open, and stressed the need of the public to be active participants in the process. Julie Young stressed that she was not interested in playing gotcha, but wanted to drive home the point, that it was necessary to ensure that the people trust the Council and that it was necessary for Councilmen to follow the rules set forth in state statutes and local ordinances.