It has been a brutal week in city government in Columbus.

At its Oct. 5 meeting, the city council shot down two major policy recommendations presented by Mayor Keith Gaskin, one calling for a forensic audit of the city’s finances, the other involving a reorganization of city administrative positions. The vote was 4-2 against both recommendations

Two days later, the mayor urged citizens to exert pressure on the city council to change its position on the recommendations during an appearance at the Columbus Exchange Club. On Tuesday, the mayor vetoed both of the council’s decisions. On Wednesday, during a special-call meeting, the council overrode the veto, again by a 4-2 vote with no council members deviating from their original position.

If the events of this past week have proven anything it’s that there is something bigger in play here, something that goes beyond these two policy issues. The atmosphere between the mayor and the majority of the council is bordering on toxic. If you question this assessment, we encourage you to watch yesterday’s meeting, which is archived on the City of Columbus, MS – Mayor’s Facebook page. Unless there are immediate changes in how the city conducts its business, it is difficult to see how city government can function effectively. No matter your position on either of the two policy issues at the center of the debate, you should find the relationship that currently exists between the mayor and the council deeply troubling.

It’s simply unsustainable.

Council members feel the mayor has failed to communicate with them. They feel disrespected. They believe the mayor is trying to circumvent them by making his case to the public through social and traditional media and, in the case of the Exchange Club, at public gatherings.

While admitting that communication with the council can be improved, the mayor vehemently rejects these arguments. He has said on more than one occasion that he has emailed the council information but cites the Open Meetings Act as a reason that conversation is limited.

The mayor is correct on this point.

City officials, including city attorney Jeff Turnage, are aware of those limitations. In 2014, the city violated the state’s Open Meetings Act after the then-mayor and council held a series of three private non-quorum meetings to establish policy. This paper challenged those meetings with the Mississippi Ethics Commission. The ruling against the city was upheld on appeal in both chancery court and, finally, the state supreme court.

The ruling noted language in the Open Meetings Act stating public business includes deliberations and discussion that go into making policy. Based on that, the ruling stated that “the formation and determination of public policy is public business and shall be conducted at open meetings.”

So it is reasonable to understand why the mayor feels constrained in his private discussions with council members. He is walking a fine line here between adhering to the law and having meaningful dialogue with council members prior to council meetings.

Fortunately, at the end of a week of acrimony, a path forward appears to have emerged.

Near the end of Wednesday’s special call meeting, Ward 3 councilman Rusty Greene suggested the council have more special meetings to discuss policy matters prior to making any decisions.

The idea has merit. When Lynn Spruill was elected mayor of Starkville in 2017, she implemented work sessions that were held on Fridays prior to the Board of Aldermen’s regular Tuesday meetings. These workshops are open to the public and allow the mayor and aldermen to discuss and deliberate — but not vote — on matters that are on the upcoming board agenda.

This seems the best possible means of improving communications between the mayor and council. It allows city officials to have meaningful discussions about policy without the fear of violating Open Meetings Act constraints. It ensures both the mayor and council have the opportunity to express their views, share information and refine policy recommendations before action is taken.

We wonder how the discussion about a forensic audit and changing administrative structure might have gone had the mayor and council had the benefit of thrashing it all out in a work session.

Some council members have cited lack of details as reason for voting against the mayor’s recommendations, after all.

The mayor said he wants to improve communications with the council; the council has stated the same. Work sessions are a solution to that problem.

We urge the city to embrace Greene’s idea.

The sooner, the better.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.