Lee Commissioner: Are other board members sending a ‘message’?

LEESBURG – At first glance, Tuesday’s 15-minute meeting of the Lee County Commission was not only rapidly concluded but relatively mundane. However, there was one action that was somewhat unusual in a number of ways. And that action left one commissioner questioning whether retaliatory actions were being taken by some board members.

The commissioners moved rapidly through a variety of agenda items, including the approval of an application for a crematorium by Leigh Jones. They adopted a resolution granting final approval for Live Oak Subdivision, including 25 lots. A number of requests for proposal were authorized for work on the Courthouse Annex. And Flint Equipment Co. was awarded the bid for the lease of four tractors for the county’s Public Works Department.

Then, Commissioner Rick Muggridge opened discussion relating to the need for immediate action on road repairs in Meyers Acres Subdivision.

“We have pavement issues there with some holes, either a failing base or sinkhole,” Muggridge said. “I was surprised at the length, which is about half a mile total of all three roads. We never have any issues there. I make a motion to authorize staff to put out bids for repairs and resurfacing while we are there.”

Following the motion there was lengthy silence before Chairman Billy Mathis, in an action that can best be described as atypical, offered a second to Muggridge’s motion. A review of parliamentary procedure indicates that, generally, the chair, in order to appear impartial, does not make or second a motion. However, rules indicate that the chair has the same “rights and powers” as other board members and in small bodies it is acceptable.

Following Mathis’s second, he called the motion to question and it died by virtue of a 2-2 vote. Commissioners John Wheaton and George Wills voted against the measure, and Mathis and Muggeridge voted for it. Commissioner Luke Singletary was unable to attend the meeting. The motion also was unusual, if not unique, in light of the fact that Wheaton and Wills voted in opposition to Mathis.

Commissioners then discussed the need to take up the Meyers Acres and Bronwood Road issues during a Roads Committee Meeting. It was finally determined to hold that meeting following the next regular commission meeting.

“We have an event currently that’s basically an emergency,” Muggridge said. “We have a failure; the longer we wait, the more it’s going to cost. We’re all here, we’re talking about a relatively minor sum in the grand scheme of things.”

Mathis and other commissioners said that they did not see it as an emergency.

“The chairman took a fairly unprecedented action seconding a motion, which I’m not sure he can do,” Muggridge said after the meeting. “I felt pretty confident somebody was trying to send me a message. There’s issues going on within the board; we all know that. There’s been lines drawn, whether they are accurate or not. So is this because it’s in my district and the other road happens to be in Luke’s district? I don’t know.”

“No motion was made on Bronwood Road; it was passed over to the Road Committee. The Road Committee is George and me. But we have no authority. There were four of us (at Tuesday’s meeting); there was a quorum there. We could have discussed whatever we needed to discuss. I don’t understand the need for a committee meeting when we could take care of business in a general meeting. Everybody on that commission, all five members, are very concerned about roads. I promise if we have a Road Committee meeting, they are going to do everything in their power to be there. So why not just have the general meeting to discuss (the issue at hand)? These were two urgent situations that we kicked the can so we could have a Road Committee meeting. Why have a Road Committee meeting when we are adjourning the regular meeting at 6:15?”

Muggridge said the action flies in the face of what a commission is elected to do.

“The thing that bothers me,” he said, “is if you are a commissioner, you have a choice to make. You can either be all about the district or you can be all about the county. I have always chosen to be all about the county. Because I believe if the county prospers, my district will prosper.

“If you have commissioners that are just concerned about their district, we are never going to get anything done. If you look at my history, I have always been a proponent, particularly with roads, of which is the next project best for the county. If we are going to play district cards, we are not going to get very far as a county. If this is a district thing, I’m disappointed in that. And if it’s retaliation in regard to this pending lawsuit (being brought against the county by former Co-Manager Mike Sistrunk), I’m disappointed in that.”

File Photo