Crockett Council Votes to Continue Livestream

By Greg Ritchie

Messenger Reporter

CROCKETT – Crockett city council debated a proposal which would have ended the livestream broadcasts of council meetings. As the discussion began, Precinct Five Councilman Mike Marsh, still somewhat in shock over an incident during public comments, (see related story in today’s edition) explained his recent controversial proposal to end livestreams of city council meetings.

“This isn’t about hiding anything from the public,” Marsh began. “It’s about how our meetings have become embarrassing and are now being seen far beyond our city. What used to take 30 minutes now takes two hours or more — time that should be spent meeting the needs of the city, not arguing and dealing with drama.”

Sources have confirmed to The Messenger some items of city business are delayed due to the length of recent city meetings, in an effort to keep them to a reasonable amount of time.

“Since I’ve been on council, we haven’t needed a written policy because council members acted in good faith. Even when we disagreed, we respected the process and each other. That has changed. It seems one council member is now using her position to cause chaos, spread false information and attack others. Because she didn’t get what she wanted, she is now using her position to hurt the city and others wherever she can,” Marsh said, presumably referring to Precinct Three Councilwoman NaTrenia Hicks, who many have speculated is angry with city leaders after the dissolution of Crockett Economic and Industrial Development Corporation (CEIDC.)

“I volunteer my time as a council member to serve this city, and I refuse to sit here and be part of this kind of behavior. Council members receive the agenda a full week before each meeting. That is plenty of time to ask questions and get clarity. Meetings should not be the first time questions are asked or homework is done,” Marsh continued.

The Messenger has reported on the many recurring questions which have come up in the last few months during council meetings, from questions about city budgets, to questions about how items are added to the agenda.

“Council members are here to make policy decisions, not to run the city day to day. That’s why we have a city manager and a city attorney — to do their jobs. Live streaming was meant to keep the public informed, but it has become a platform for bad behavior. It shows chaos, not good leadership. People outside the community — including businesses considering moving here — see this and think it represents our city. It does not,” Marsh said.

“Real openness means our meetings are open to everyone who wants to attend, listen and participate. Posting comments after meetings are over is not the same as constructive engagement.”

As we have reported, the city is under no legal obligation to provide livestreams, or even microphones, although audio and minutes from the meetings are available to the public upon request. 

“I’m not against transparency. I’m against chaos and hostility being used in a way that hurts our city,” Marsh concluded. “We need clear rules, accountability and a return to respectful, focused meetings so we can serve the people who elected us.”

Precinct Two Councilman Chris Price said he was in favor of continuing the livestream, although he understood Marsh’s point, and that it was a “double-edged sword.”

Precinct One Councilman Dennis Ivey said that if the livestream was meant to keep the public informed, how did anyone know anything about council meetings before then? He wondered if people could not either attend in person or read about it in the local newspaper. 

“My hope is that people watching tonight — especially those who may want to run for these positions — will step up and offer their time and service by coming and doing what we do,” Ivey said. “Serving on council isn’t something to criticize from the outside; it’s something you commit to.”

Ivey admitted he too, had grown tired of the hours of bickering and confusion. 

“Honestly, since I’ve been on council, I’ve enjoyed serving. When I moved to town, I was encouraged to run for council, and I’ve truly valued the opportunity,” Ivey pointed out. “I want to enjoy this again. Right now, it feels like every decision we make — even when we’re trying to do what’s right — is met with someone saying they know a better way. We’re doing our best to serve the city, and that often gets lost in the noise.”

The comments helped to clarify the notion of suspending the broadcasts, as the two men have grown weary of the longer-than-needed meetings, the constant, but unproven, accusations of wrongdoing by city employees, and the seemingly endless requests for more information, clarification, or explanation of what some might consider basic meeting rules and procedures. 

The motion to continue to live-stream was passed 3-2, with Ivey and Marsh voting no.

The Messenger will have further coverage of this extraordinary meeting in our Sunday edition. 

Greg Ritchie can be reached at [email protected]