11-04-2025
City of Danville Public Works Committee votes to recommend changing voting rules
Danville's City Council is made up of 14 alderpersons, two from each ward. But according to Alderwoman Sherry Pickering, only five City Council meetings in 2024 were attended by all 14 members.
To combat this attendance issue, members of the Public Works Committee debated Tuesday about making a change to Chapter 31 of Danville's City Code, which would make it easier for the council to pass proposals regardless how many members are in attendance.
As it stands now, eight votes are required to pass a proposal. The Public Works Committee voted in favor of recommending the City Council change Chapter 31, making it so that only seven votes are required.
Alderman-elect Doug Ahrens — who will be sworn in alongside other new members May 6 — spoke during the Public Comment section, saying that making such a change would 'diminish the role and the authority of aldermen that are the closest representatives to the people.'
'For the past 35 to 37 years, that's how it's worked. Everybody's known that it takes eight to get the job done, and sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. But that is the standards that were established, and I would hate to see the standards lowered,' Ahrens said. 'If aldermen can't get to the meetings, they shouldn't get paid.
'These meetings are when aldermen serve their role to represent their constituents and make votes that matter... Sometimes, if we have elected officials who aren't able to serve the role, it's time to step down.'
Half of the council makes $225 a month, regardless how many meetings they attend, while the other half, who were more recently elected, make $350 a month, according to Public Works Committee Chairman Mike Puhr.
In order to withhold pay for lack of attendance or change the pay system so that alderpersons are paid per meeting, the full council would have to vote on making such a change to the city's code, according to Mayor Rickey Williams, Jr.
Puhr spoke about the history of the issue, saying it had been discussed several times in the past few years, in part because the council was misinformed, he said, by previous Corporate Counsel.
'We were informed by the previous corporate counsel that we could operate on a majority of a quorum of aldermen present. We found out later that wasn't true, and since we don't have our own rules in place, it causes us then to have to go by the dictate of the state,' Puhr said.
Alderman Mike O'Kane was opposed to making the change.
'I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to somebody not having a vote going their way on occasion,' O'Kane said. 'I still believe in the eighth vote. It makes us work harder … It helps the majority of our members ensure decisions reflect the view of the broader body of the whole Council, not just a handful that show up, not a small minority.'
O'Kane was also against a portion of the proposed change which would have given the mayor a vote in certain circumstances.
'If less than the full City Council are present, a measure, ordinance, or resolution will pass with seven affirmative votes. The mayor may cast an eighth or seventh vote to pass a measure, ordinance, or resolution, whether or not the vote of the aldermen has resulted in a tie; or when a vote greater than a majority of the City Council is required by state statute or City ordinance to adopt an ordinance, resolution, or measure. The mayor shall not cast a vote if such vote would result in a tie,' the proposed change read.
'The people of the City of Danville did not vote for a mayor who could vote. They voted for him to run the city and the councilmen run the meetings and do the legislation, not him doing both. That'd be like if the president was going to the Congress and voting. It's just not right,' O'Kane said.
Williams asserted that the change was not his idea, but one brought to him by Puhr and other council members.
'I was not a part of this committee. After they came to their conclusions, they did show it to me, but I was not a part of this committee,' Williams said, adding that he 'does not care either way.'
Alderwoman Carolyn Wands supported the change, saying the Council was 'here to do business.'
'I've been at some [meetings] where where it's been very hard to to pass something … and I feel like we need to make some changes,' Wands said. 'I'm for this, basically because we've got to do business. We're put here to do business, not put it off. And I think too many times, things have been tabled and sent back.'
A far as the possibility of sick alderpersons attending meetings virtually, via video call or conference call, Williams said the current city hall building is not equipped for such technology.
'It's not a lack of desire, it's a lack of not having it. And given that we're gonna move within a year, we don't want to invest in the new technology to make it better,' Williams said.
Aside from ensuring working technology, the City Council would also have to apply to the Attorney General's office for permission to allow alderpersons to attend virtually, and each physical absence would have to be approved. Moreover, there are some stipulations that require a quorum of physical attendees in order to pass proposals, Williams said.
The decision of changing Chapter 31 will be left up to the City Council to decide at their next meeting Tuesday, April 15.
