On this page this week, Marion Mayor Mary Olson responds to an editorial in last week’s paper about executive sessions and her behavior at a council meeting.

She defends her actions by citing Kansas Open Meetings Act.

As of 2008, Kansas statute 75-4317a does allow two members of a council to communicate about city business outside of a council meeting. Before the statute changed, the majority of a quorum could not communicate outside of meetings. On a five-member council, three would be a quorum; so, two would be in violation. Olson claims she has not talked with more than one council member at a time outside of meetings. The point Olson is missing is there should not be weekly or every other week conversations among council members about city business prior to meetings.

The other side of the open meetings act is trusting our elected officials to not engage in inappropriate conversations. But when we know it’s happening on a regular basis, it makes it tough to trust those who should be deserving of our trust. Communication between council members — outside of meetings — should be kept to a minimum for the sake of public trust.

The other kicker is Olson sees no problem with having numerous executive sessions at every council meeting or talking to council members about city business outside of the council room. That’s great that she knows the law. Knowing the law should help her to understand our concern about her intentions.

When conversations occur before meetings, public perception is that two council members are in on the secrets and three are not. Two are ready to make a decision and three are not.

Another concern is Olson not seeing anything wrong with her behavior at the Oct. 18 council meeting when she stifled council members from discussing policy issues regarding executive sessions. Setting policy is their job.

City department heads are paid — quite well, I might add — to take care of their departments. If there is an issue that cannot be resolved by the department heads or the city administrator, employees should go before the council but only in extreme situations, not every other week. When elected officials micromanage and undermine the authority of department heads, it is no wonder employees aren’t sure what they should do and find themselves going to the council for direction.

Council members, some more than others, are interested in day-to-day operations of the city but they should be more concerned about setting policy and planning for the future than whether a pothole is filled.

Until the council can let those who are paid to manage the city do their jobs, this community will not move forward because there is no one to lead us.

— susan berg