Tensions flare — Rec board expresses frustration with council

A discussion between Mayor Tyrel Owens and members of the Newcastle Rec Board became heated on May 5 after the board expressed concerns over public statements members of the council made that were quoted in a recent article in the News Letter Journal. 

“Recently, our reputation was tarnished by a very negative article that came out in the News Letter Journal,” recreation board secretary Burl King said. “Allegations were made against us by members of this council.”

King explained to the council what the rec board is and how it functions, and said they were given a lack of guidance on requirements to secure their annual budget from the city. He outlined that budget for the board, explaining that the city provides $38,000 annually, with a quarter of those funds being dedicated to the 21 Century Community Learning Centers summer rec program each year.  

The article he referenced ran in the April 30 edition of the News Letter Journal, discussing the city budget workshop. At the workshop, the council raised concerns about city recreation funds being spent outside of the city, and expressed dissatisfaction over the lack of representation on the part of the recreation board at the meeting, which was held on April 14. 

King said the first claim that money was allocated to items purchased outside of Newcastle was false. He noted that both incidents mentioned by Councilman Tom Voss during the workshop — post prom for Newcastle High School and Newcastle High School FCCLA — occurred two years ago and were not events that happened outside of city limits.

He also defended the lack of attendance at the budget workshop.

“Two, we were cited with lack of representation at the City Council workshop,” King said. “The fact is we were never informed of any workshop that took place that we were required to attend.”

He noted his understanding was that the workshop was voluntary. King said that if it is a requirement, the rec board would be happy to attend. 

“We just need a clear written directive from the City Council for the requirements for our board,” King said. 

It was at this point that Owens stopped King and addressed what had been said, explaining that the rec board had met with him earlier that day to discuss their concerns. 

“Um, uh, I didn’t realize you were going to come in, you know, hot and heavy tonight,” Owens said, apparently caught off-guard by King’s presentation. 

“So the premise of the meeting was so that we could discuss your lack of availability at our budget session that you were provided written notice. You were provided an email. You were provided a mail in your mailbox and you were provided a phone call,” he stated. 

Melissa Hammond, president of the rec board, interrupted Owens to declare that it was not noticed in the workshop announcements that attendance was required, but the mayor pushed back. 

“So the thing is we had a nice discussion in my office today, and it stood to reason that when you’re coming in to ask for funding for the rec board to continue to function that you should come in and ask the one entity that gives you that funding in person,” Owens said. 

He acknowledged that the workshop overlapped with the rec board meeting in April, but suggested “it also seems like common sense to me that you would provide somebody to come to the meeting and discuss funding — your sole funding for your board to exist.” 

“So we just asked why no one was here,” Owens said. 

King responded that the rec board members appreciated the meeting with the mayor, but indicated that they wanted the entire city council to understand that the rec board has been facing a number of different challenges. 

“The fact is that over the last six months our board has struggled. Over the last year we’ve lost six members of a seven-member board,” King said. 

According to King, from September to January, the board did not even have enough members to conduct full business. During that period, he reported, there were only two board members and they were not able to approve any funding requests. As a result, he indicated there were many requestors that were turned away. 

“At one point, this board was staffed with three active members, which is the minimum required to legally conduct business for our organization,” he said. “The fact is, the remaining board members have been diligent recruiting new members and continuing to do our job. The board has undergone some restructuring. We now have four solid active members and are seeking
even more.” 

King noted that even during the period when the board struggled the most, the budget was still delivered to Haggerty in a timely manner. 

“Fact is, the recreation board works very hard to serve this community, and we do not appreciate being drug through the mud in a public forum such as the paper,” King said, adding that bringing the issues to the board was not an attack but an attempt to get the council to understand the rec board’s situation. 

After the discussion transitioned back to next year’s budget, several individuals spoke on behalf of the rec board, and King said the board was requesting an increase from $38,000 to $40,000. He said the rec board does not believe the increase is a huge jump, and feels that it would instead greatly benefit the community. 

Once King’s presentation was concluded, Owens apologized for letting his temper flare and asked the council if they wanted to entertain a motion to increase the rec board budget. It was noted that a motion to approve the increase was not required because a budget has not been formally approved for the upcoming year and such changes can still be taken under consideration 

The council also told the rec board that if it is having issues, such as a lack of board members and inability to conduct business, the board, as an arm of the city, should come to the council.

Later in the meeting, Councilman John Butts requested that the rec board provide an updated budget for the city to review. Owens said he would communicate that to the group.