Change to residency requirement for city clerk fails council vote

Two measures which could have had implications in the hiring of Poplar Bluff’s new city clerk failed Monday to make it past the city council’s workshop agenda.

The council considered easing residency requirements for those applying for the job and tightening rules regarding the hiring of relatives of city council members.

Longtime city clerk Pam Kearbey has announced her retirement.

Applications for the position were taken through Monday, after council members voted March 4 in a closed meeting to extend the deadline and allow the public to apply. The application process was previously restricted to city employees.

The city has received more than 10 applications as of Monday.

Council members discussed the two proposed ordinances during a regular meeting Monday. Council member at-large Steve Davis recused himself from both discussions, citing a possible conflict of interest.

Both items were placed on the agenda by Mayor Susan McVey, who described them as housekeeping matters.

“With the change of her (Kearbey’s) position, it’s just a good time to clean up, do some housekeeping on our ordinances that have not had any changes in quite some years,” McVey said.

The city clerk and city manager are both currently required to live within the city limits. Other heads of departments and employees are allowed to live within the boundaries of Butler County.

McVey proposed allowing the clerk to live outside the city limits, but within Butler County.

“As you know, our county is growing. There are several subdivisions outside the city limits, as well as further out into the county. Not everybody lives inside the city limits,” McVey said.

A motion by council member Ed DeGaris to move the matter to Monday’s voting session failed to pass with support only from DeGaris, Ron Black and McVey. Council members Robert Smith, Barbara Horton and Shane Cornman voted against the proposal.

“I voted against the residency change and did not support the motion to modify the existing ordinance for relatives because I didn’t agree with the timing,” Corman said. “I didn’t feel it would be fair to the applicants to change the existing ordinance after they already submitted their applications.”

Council members also reviewed policies from other cities regarding the employment of relatives. After discussion, the matter died for lack of a motion.

“I put it on the agenda so that we can talk with transparency and clarity,” said McVey.

Several of the policies prohibit the hiring of a city council person’s immediate relative to a fulltime position with the city.

“We experienced going through a time when our city clerk was not able to be in here,” McVey explained. “We were trying to define it a little tighter because the city clerk is the custodian of all records. If they’re related to a person, it just was a difficult situation.”

Cornman asked city attorney Mark Richardson what ramifications there would be if a city council member’s relative became city clerk.

The city council member would have to recuse themselves from any discussion or vote regarding decisions to hire, fire, discipline, promote, change the job description or set salary for the person, Richardson said.

The city’s current policy does not prevent the hiring of a city council member’s relative.

It does prohibit two or more family members from being employed by the same department, from supervising another family member or auditing the work of another family member.

“Your current ordinance is fine,” Richardson said. “It’s compliant, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t want to change it or improve it or do something different with it. That’s perfectly alright.”

Richardson said he would just need to know what changes the council wishes to make before moving forward to a voting session.