The Jackson City Council voted 4-1 to order the Melton administration to release the city’s 1099 forms.
Members voting in favor of the documents’ release included Jeff Weill of Ward 1; President Leslie McLemore of Ward 2; Marshand Crisler of Ward 6; and Vice President Margaret Barrett-Simon of Ward 7. Frank Bluntson of Ward 4, voted against it.
Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes and Ward 5 Councilman Charles Tillman, were absent.
Melton said last week he would veto the order if passed.
The mayor was not present at Monday’s special meeting.
Weill requested the 1099 forms in order to find out the city’s spending for 2007. His request was denied. “It’s important that we look at these documents, it really is,” he said.
Robert M. Walker, Jackson’s chief administrative officer, expressed concern about personal data on the documents becoming public. “Social security numbers are very personal to an individual,” he said. “In our view that information cannot be made available to anyone.”
Walker said he was concerned about the time needed to comply with such “tedious requests.” “Whenever these requests come in and our staff attempts to provide that information, that means that other vital things that are necessary for the function of this city have to go undone,” he said.
Crisler suggested to Walker only the last four digits of the social security numbers should show. “Some kind of way we need to figure how to identify these people with their numbers,” Crisler said. “To suggest that we can’t block out the last five digits and have the first four, I don’t see how that’s an issue, quite frankly.
“I don’t think any other body in America is having problems that we’re having just getting standard information on where this money that we‘re voting on every week is being spent,” he said. “This is ridiculous. This is why the council and the administration have a strained (relationship).”
City Attorney Sarah O’Reilly-Evans told the council its actions can legally be vetoed by the mayor. “We had been advised that any order, resolution, or court hearing is subject to a veto,” she said. Evans said a veto can be used to even block an investigative order. She also said only a super majority of five council members can override the veto.
Crisler said it might be necessary to seek an attorney general’s opinion on the matter. “I’m starting to feel like we have no authority, quite frankly, as a majority of the council,” he said.
Barrett-Simon concurred with Crisler. “The law clearly states… that a majority of the council can call for an investigation,” she said. “If we don’t have that power to compel witnesses, to make an important decision … what are we doing here?”
Bluntson did not want city employees’ information to go through “makeshift stuff.” “I never heard this in my lifetime that you are going to call for people’s W-2 forms,” he said. “If your looking for something, tell us who you are looking for. If you got word on somebody whose stealing, call their names out … don’t put all the city employees through all this mess.”
Weill is convinced the order will go through even if by subpoena. “It’ll be like – if my wife and I who have a joint bank account and I was to ask my wife to let me see the bank account, (and) she said ‘No, you have to subpoena it.’ It’s that basic.”
Be the first to comment