Council reprimands Mayor Elisa Beasley

By Basil Gist

Staff Writer

The Pilot Point City Council issued a letter of reprimand and several public admonishments regarding Mayor Elisa Beasley’s recent conduct at a Dec. 13 special meeting, at which Beasley was absent.

       The meeting consisted of a public forum followed by an executive session and several actions from the dais.

       “The mayor has separated the dais into two teams, the city council and the mayor, posting half-truths and misleading information on social media; overreaching into administrative functions; and not accepting a resolution that was passed by the dais, [which] is harmful to both the city and our constituents,” Mayor Pro Tem Andrew Ambrosio said.

       After executive, Ambrosio prompted City Attorney Brenda McDonald to explain the order of municipal rulings, which is the state constitution, then the city charter, then ordinances and resolutions.

       “There is a legal principal called Equal Dignity, which says that if different documents contain different provisions, we have to do the very best we can to give each provision and document meaning,” McDonald said.

       Ambrosio presented a motion to issue the letter, citing an email from Beasley to City Manager Britt Lusk, copyingh City Secretary Lenette Cox and McDonald, that he read verbatim.

       In it, Beasley presented a schedule for Lusk outlining how she expects to receive and review the agenda moving forward. She additionally requested a detailed weekly report on Lusk’s schedule and projects go to council.

       “That particular email does violate all three—the charter, an ordinance and the governance policy, which is a resolution,” Ambrosio said. “The charter states in section 3.08, ‘The mayor shall not have interference in administrative activities.’ Ordinance 1.04.037, ‘The mayor should not have interference with administration.’ And then the governance policy in section 2 council and staff, ‘The council shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the city or the professional duties of the staff.’’’

       He continued.

       “Our mayor quotes the charter a lot, and I’m going to quote the charter again,” Ambrosio said. “In section 3.05 under Mayor-Mayor Pro-Tem, it states, ‘The mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes and by the governor for purposes of military law but shall have no regular administrative duties and no legislative veto powers.’”

       The rest of the council also weighed in.

       “We’ve had recent discussion in private sessions that address this type of administrative overreach, and this recent activity represents a pattern of administrative interference, which we feel could potentially put our city at risk,” council member Chad Major said. “A letter of reprimand would be appropriate.”

       Council member Brian Heitzman presented a downside to taking formal action.

       “I’ll be devil’s advocate here,” Heitzman said. “By preparing the letter of reprimand, we put out a formal document that she can now go to Facebook with and post and say, ‘Oh, poor me.’ That’s just fodder for those who are adamant about posting on her behalf.”

       Beasley disagreed with the council’s interpretation of her email.

       “Every single week every member of the city council goes in and meets with the city manager,” Beasley said. “They go in and ask questions of the city manager. Administrative would be if I go in and talk to Britt about an ordinance and then go to John Taylor because it’s his department and I say, ‘You should send Sheree to go enforce this code.’ That’s me getting involved administratively.”

       Council member Ray Dane made the motion, seconded by Chad Major and unanimously approved.

       Still focusing on Beasley’s social media presence, Heitzman proposed an additional item be added to the council’s future agendas allowing council to address misstatements and misinformation on social media.

       “A number of citizens have approached me as to why we don’t speak up more, and there are some rules of decorum that disallow us from taking that action, but at this time, because of the recurring nature, it’s definitely time to address it on the dais,” Major said.

       Dane again made the motion, seconded by Everett Cummings, and council again gave unanimous approval.

       “One side goes out and there are misstatements and untruths, and this is the only way unless we become experts in posting social media things,” Dane said. “This is the only way we can get the rest of the story out.”

       Several residents have spoken at previous meetings, including on Dec. 12 about misinformation in Beasley’s social media posts.

       Pilot Point resident Matt Abbott outlined three instances during Beasley’s Dec. 10 video addressing the complaints Monica David filed about undisclosed campaign contributions.

       He explained that the first complaint was not dismissed but was instead partially “past the statute of limitations,” and that “the filings were complaints, not lawsuits.”

       Abbott continued.

       “You claimed you serve all people of Pilot Point; however, according to a public statement you made on May 4, you stated, ‘I serve the maker, and those who voted for me,’” Abbott said. “This would suggest, Mayor, that you serve 50% of the town, not all of it.”

       Beasley interjected, saying “Fifty percent plus four.”

       “This doesn’t appear to be selfless,” Abbott said. “It’s not leadership, and apparently, not all that transparent. I believe the majority of this town desires unity, but the course you’ve taken so far in the current term has been anything but unifying.”

       Maureen Haverty clarified several additional pieces of misinformation from Beasley’s posts regarding the governance committee shortly after its conception.

       Maureen Haverty spoke Dec. 12 about pieces of misinformation from Beasley’s posts regarding the governance committee and then again on Dec. 13 alongside Cindy Faris and Debbie McEwen in favor of the council’s actions.

       No one in attendance Dec. 13 spoke on behalf of Beasley, though one did on Dec. 12.

       “The council needs to pay attention to the public, and this is the job you accepted when you were elected, so I want you all to listen to the public,” Gretta Buchanan said. “We support the mayor. We support transparency, and we support the charter.”

       Following the second motion on Dec. 13, Dane addressed Beasley’s Dec. 12 refusal to acknowledge an item established by the governance policies.

       Dane asked if they’d skipped item D.

       Beasley responded, “No, we’re not doing that, the charter states in mayor duties section 3.05 the rules of the mayor, ‘The mayor shall attend and preside at all meetings of the city council.’”

       McDonald urged the mayor as a point of order that the item should be addressed and approved with a motion, which Ambrosio made.

       “Under Robert’s Rules, you preside over the meetings unless there is a point of order raised by a member and voted on by the council and a majority decides to handle the agenda differently,” McDonald said. “My legal advice is that the charter says the council shall establish its rules for procedure. Your decision to govern otherwise is in violation of the charter.”

       Ambrosio then read a separate portion of section 3.05.

       “You’re saying you have a veto power,” Ambrosio said. “Our city attorney just told you you’re going against the charter. She’s an attorney; you’re a mayor.”

       Beasley continued trying to move on before Dane seconded Ambrosio’s previous motion, which the mayor refused to acknowledge.

       “As mayor pro tem, I’ll take over this vote,” Ambrosio said. “There is a motion on the floor made by me, seconded by Councilman Dane. All in favor?”

       Save the mayor, council unanimously approved the agenda.

       “Now you’re out of order, because there is nowhere in the charter that states as mayor pro tem you get to take over while I’m seated, and I’m here and present, so I want that noted for the record,” Beasley said.

       Each member of the council publicly admonished the mayor’s actions, but opted against another formal reprimand.

       “I’m not saying that I know more than Brenda or more than anyone else, but this is not my first rodeo,” Beasley said. “I’ve been reading the charter since 2014 when I first sat on the City Council. The attorney had not even read the charter until last year, and she’s been serving our city for a long time.”

       Beasley said she believes the council discussing her actions on Dec. 12 violates the open meetings act.

       “We have to post what we’re discussing. I believe there is a violation of the Open Meetings Act if they were discussing what happened Thursday during the meeting Friday because that couldn’t have been posted,” Beasley said.

       McDonald disagreed.

       “The Friday meeting was properly posted in accordance with the Open Meetings Act,” McDonald said. “The description of the meeting allowed the council to discuss the mayor’s conduct at the Thursday regular city council meeting.”

       Faris publicly disagreed with council’s nonaction on the matter.

       “If you don’t reprimand her behavior for last night, it’s going to continue,” Faris said. “I’m not an enemy of the mayor. I love everyone in this town, ... [but] I don’t have to like the way they act or what they do. It's just like a bad child that never gets corrected, that bad child continues bad behavior.”

       Beasley said she remains opposed to any aspect of the governance that crossed the charter as she reads it.

       “The law can be interpreted in all kinds of different ways,” Beasley said. “I am abiding by the charter to how I understand it. If I am incorrect, I am 100% willing to say I am incorrect, but I will need to see that in writing outside of our city attorney. We’re a part of a large system. There are plenty of people that can chime in on that if they wanted to.”