(3/10) For the fourth month in a row, the accuracy of the Town Council meeting minutes were called into question with concerns over inaccuracies in the report. Unlike in the three months prior, this time the whole Council agreed to reject the February 5th Council meeting minutes until discrepancies could be resolved.

Ironically, the discrepancies were related to the portion of the last meeting pertaining to the deliberations on the need for a more comprehensive account of meeting minutes.

Commissioner Valerie Turnquist pointed out that the February 5th minutes were incorrect in the claiming that she alone would write an example of minutes for the meeting to be used as a model. Turnquist said that contrary to that entry, Mayor Frank Davis had assigned that task to all the Council members and that each was to present a version of the minutes of the meting that they found suitable, not just her.

Turnquist requested that the minutes be modified to include the Mayor’s "homework" assignment, but her motion failed due to a lack of a seconding vote.

Commissioners Cliff Sweeney and Tim O’Donnell stated they could not recall what was agreed to, but viewed the minutes as compiled by the Town staff sufficient with no need to be modified. [O’Donnell and Sweeney have historically sided with staff who transcribe the meetings, noting that commissioners and residents could always access video recordings if they needed more information.]

O’Donnell made a motion to approve both the February 5th and 12th meeting minutes, only to retract the motion in favor of a second motion to modify the minutes to demonstrate that Turnquist had in fact been the only one "assigned" to pen a "prototype" of what minutes should look like, before withdrawing that motion as well upon realizing that was already in the minutes and was the basis for Turnquist’s issue with them. O’Donnell eventually "threw up his hands" and requested the staff review the video of the meeting minutes to determine who said what.

As none of the Council members could agree on what was said, they eventually joined O’Donnell in directing the staff to review the February 5th meeting video to establish exactly what was said and to correct the minutes accordingly.

Turnquist, who has led the effort for more comprehensive accounting of Council meetings, has expressed reservations over the lack of inclusion of dialogue related to questions, concerns, or requests for more information from commissioners. "This is our record of what transpired," she said, "and should be captured in the minutes so readers can put the information in perspective."

In February, the Council approved the January 8th and 22nd meeting minutes on a 3-2 split decision, with Council President Amy Boehman and Turnquist voting against approval, citing concerns that the minutes did not reflect the actual meeting. The split decision was a rare display of discord in a process that has historically been a collegial pro-forma act by Council members.

In January, Commissioner Jim Hoover voted to table the December 5th and 12th minutes with similar concerns. And in December, Turnquist refused to approve the November 6th minutes because the minutes didn’t reflect important changes to the Community Legacy Grant that were to be implemented by Town staff going forward.

"As it stands, the Town Council minutes are not a full and accurate account of our meetings as required by our Town Code," Turnquist noted. "To be transparent about the business that we conduct, our minutes should reflect what we discussed."