Members of the Medford City Council have their hackles up over a blog by one of their members suggesting that the council has held secret meetings.
Councilman John Statler wrote a Web log, commonly called a blog, in September, in which he said he was suspicious that the council was making decisions outside of a public forum.
Councilman Bob Strosser says the blog is an accusation that the council has violated public meetings law. Strosser not only denies that that has occurred, but says Statler should either file a formal complaint or withdraw his insinuations.
"I think Mr. Statler needs to be accountable, as all the rest of us are, for the things he says," said Strosser, who said he recently received a copy of Statler's blog, delivered anonymously to his mailbox in City Hall.
Strosser attempted to file a formal complaint against Statler with the state government ethics commission Wednesday, but the commission declined to take the complaint, saying it was outside its authority.
Advertisement | |
In August, the council decided not to change the reporting structure for the city attorney. Medford City Councilman Jim Kuntz said the council also has decided to stay with the existing evaluation of the city manager.
Statler said there has been no public discussion on the two issues, but decisions have been reached.
"Where did the discussion take place that resulted in a change in direction regarding the city manager?" he asked.
Statler said the blog comment was more a question than an accusation.
"I stand behind what I said (in the blog)," he said. "For me it was more of an honest exploration."
But Strosser saw it as more than mere musings.
"I think he's waffling about the comments he made," he said, adding that he didn't want to leave the matter unsettled.
"I think we'll have an appropriate and professional discussion in front of a camera (at a televised council meeting)," Strosser said.
In the blog, Statler expressed concern about the amount of time that had passed without a discussion by the council of the two issues. The blog reads:
"There are a variety of reasons why these motions might have taken so long to come back before council.
"The city manager has purposely ignored the direction of council and thus violated his highest ethical duty.
"The City Council has a majority of Council members who meet outside of the public arena and make decisions and give direction to the City Manager also in a way that is outside of public arena.
"The City Manager and his staff have exhibited a significant level of incompetence in tracking the direction given by Council in a public arena.
"Or the council does not fully understand the intent of the open meeting laws.
"I'm trying to say, I'm trying to get some answers to explain the behavior."
Council members Kuntz, Skip Knight and Jason Anderson joined Statler in denying they had violated public meetings law.
"The council does not meet outside the public arena," said Knight, who noted that council members do call one another.
"I'll talk to all of them on any one issue on the phone," he said.
While denying any impropriety, Kuntz said he did not have a problem with the content of Statler's blog.
"What he says there or doesn't say is all right with me," he said.
Statler said he looked forward to discussing the issue in public.
"I am 100 percent behind open public discussion at council meetings," he said.
Reach reporter Meg Landers at 776-4481 or e-mail mlanders@mailtribune.com.
