But he can’t count on much help from the mayor and fellow council members. The two additional votes he needs to pass a motion that would put the issue to a public vote is likely not there.
Councilman Russell Schneider and Mayor Bill Jones III, the two members who have abstained from voting or discussion on city projects involving their personal financial interests, have opposed Jeter on the issue for more than one year.
Monday, Marty Janczak, District 3 councilman for a year and a half, said he largely stayed out of earlier discussions because it looked “political.” He says if everything is aboveboard with business dealings between elected officials and the city, he sees no problem.
Janczak said the city could lose some talented people if it prohibited council members from doing business with the city.
“That lowers your talent pool of who might have the opportunity to provide public service to the community,” Janczak said. “I think there’s been pretty much full disclosure. As long as people who have those relationships do that, I for one am very comfortable with that.”
Patsy Luna has served on the council for six years. She said she has not made a decision if she would vote for a motion that could put the matter to a public vote. But, like Janczak, she feels amending the city charter to prohibit officials from doing business with the city will discourage good candidates from running.
“I’m not willing to say outright I would vote for or against it. I want to keep an open mind and see what develops,” Ms. Luna said.
Meanwhile, Jeter continues to follow the issue on his blog. Reacting to Jones’ comments last week, he said the mayor and Schneider had a closed mind regarding the issue.
“He’s not going to participate in a discussion in calling a charter review,” Jeter said. “He wants to force the citizens to do a petition. That is no small feat. That is a big project, and I talked about it, and it’s not something I can pull off.”
Jones said last week if citizens had a problem with elected officials doing business with the city, they could vote them out of office, or raise a petition, which requires 5 percent of registered city voters - which currently would mean 1,720 signatures.
Jeter said the mayor’s remarks are dismissive.
“It’s the same old business as usual, just like you see in Washington. ‘We know better than you, vote us out if you want, but we know better than you.’ What’s to lose on a charter review? If it’s really no problem, then let’s get a bunch of independent people together and let the citizens vote,” Jeter said.
One relative Temple newcomer, reacting to Jeter’s blog and a recent Telegram story, said maybe it’s time for Temple to take a close look at its future and how it does business with elected officials. North Temple resident Jim Cornette said there is no impropriety, people are acting within the law, but it may be time for Temple to turn the corner on this issue.
“In putting this situation on the table and giving it the spotlight, it has the tendency to create a defensive reaction,” Cornette said. “Let’s put some procedure, and things in place. As new situations arise we handle them as elegantly as we can. I think we need to be recognizing what we need to be doing going forward.”
Temple city council members earn $5 per meeting with a $15 monthly cap. The council meets at 5 p.m. on Thursday at the Municipal Building.
