A central focus of the meeting was the council’s resolution regarding the interim business administrator’s appointment, a position that had been filled with the mayor’s temporary appointee since May 1. This appointment had sparked contention due to the council’s required advisory and consent role, especially since the 60-day period for interim appointments had expired on July 1 without formal council action. The resolution, titled “resolution memorializing the expiration of the 60-day period of the mayor’s apparent appointment of the interim business administrator,” was advanced to address this procedural oversight and assert the council’s authority in such appointments.

The town attorney’s correspondence criticized the council’s actions, deeming the resolution “wholly inappropriate” due to its potential impact on ongoing settlement discussions with the mayor. The council president stressed that the meeting was about upholding the council’s legal authority rather than personnel matters related to the individual in the interim position. The resolution passed unanimously.

Another portion of the meeting was devoted to scheduling future sessions, a task complicated by conflicting obligations and the hybrid nature of meetings. The council explored dates for a budget workshop and additional meetings, initially considering September 1, which coincided with Labor Day. Consequently, September 2 at 5:00 p.m. was proposed as a backup, with further discussions about the feasibility of September 29.

The council also debated the timing of discussing specific legislative items, including the cafe ordinance and equipment rental matters. A suggestion to expedite the cafe ordinance through a special meeting was met with concerns about the adequacy of public comment and procedural integrity. The ordinance had previously undergone extensive review and public input, but some members advocated for delaying its discussion until the September 8 meeting to ensure transparency and engagement.

Throughout this scheduling discourse, members were reminded of the township code stipulations that limit special meeting agendas to noticed items. This reminder highlighted the procedural constraints faced by the council in adding new items to the agenda without risking legal complications. Such caution was emphasized by legal advisor Mr. Burke, who recommended adhering strictly to the agenda to avoid invalidating any council actions.

Council members expressed frustration over delays in progressing the cafe ordinance, which had been in consideration for about six months. Despite acknowledging the efforts made to incorporate public feedback, Mr. Burke’s legal guidance was ultimately upheld, with the council president supporting the recommendation to refrain from voting on the ordinance during the special meeting.