Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Howell asked if there would be Council support to censure Councilmember <br />Woestehoff for sitting, noting while he is legally allowed to sit on the board, the optics of it and <br />the circumstances regarding the process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked what that censure would mean. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied there isn’t a legal consequence to censuring a Councilmember, it is a <br />statement like a resolution. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked Councilmember Howell to repeat her stated censure. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Howell, Seconded by Councilmember Musgrove, to censure <br />Councilmember Woestehoff for continuing to remain in the Charter Commission seat he was <br />recently appointed to, that while legal, is in very poor taste considering the optics and <br />circumstances in which the position was advertised and the mistakes that were made in the <br />advertising process and the questionable way in which it was handled and his unwillingness to step <br />down. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: <br />Mayor Kuzma stated he didn’t believe Councilmember Woestehoff did anything wrong. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff applied, went through the process, and didn’t do anything wrong. <br />Mayor Kuzma thought it was wrong to try to censure Councilmember Woestehoff. The fact that <br />he doesn’t want to step down at this point but stated he would if the Charter Amendment would <br />go through shows that Councilmember Woestehoff is trying to fix the process. He stated there <br />were inconsistencies that happened on this, noting Staff is overworked with multiple vacancies in <br />the Staff so things can fall through the cracks. He stated the City followed the process that has <br />been in place for the last ten years. Mayor Kuzma stated he will not be supporting this. <br />Councilmember Howell replied to Mayor Kuzma’s statement about Councilmember Woestehoff <br />trying to fix the problem, noting he could fix it by stepping down and leading by example but is <br />choosing not to. She stated that is the reason for the censure. Councilmember Heineman pointed <br />out that Councilmember Howell did a great job by finding this and putting together a well stated <br />informational presentation. He stated he wouldn’t agree to a censure because doing an official <br />censure is going past what is procedural and trying to tear each other down. Councilmember Riley <br />agreed with Councilmember Heineman. He continued that doing something that is not prohibited <br />means it is allowed and it sounds like steps are going to be made to stop that in the future, but <br />saying that something needs to be done on an individual level is not something he is going to <br />support. Councilmember Specht commented he would support this because it is about the <br />separation of powers, for the integrity of the Charter and Council, and is an important step to be <br />made known through the minutes but also through the censure. Councilmember Musgrove <br />commented she hasn’t gotten an answer to the question when Councilmember Woestehoff is on <br />the Charter how does he vote on City matters relating to the Council, and vice versa. Either there <br />would be votes in both places or he would have to recuse himself because a conflict of interest <br />with votes isn’t wanted. She stated it doesn’t look good and asked how does he functions in both <br />roles when the Charter is a governing body over the City. She wasn’t sure how he was going to <br />be effective on the Charter Commission with his votes and she will be supporting the censure. <br /> <br />City Council / February 22, 2022 <br />Page 29 of 34 <br /> <br />