You Cannot Refuse the Email, the Device and the Packet-Then Claim Nobody Communicated

I have tried more approaches than I can count to resolve the disagreements within this Council and prevent our City government from descending into the spectacle the public has witnessed. I tried reasonable solutions and, at times, solutions that required more patience than the situation deserved.

I did that because public service requires restraint-not because I lacked the facts or was unwilling to defend the authority and responsibilities of the Mayor’s Office.

My efforts to keep the peace have repeatedly been mistaken for weakness. My willingness to help has been treated as an opportunity to create another accusation.

It is time to stop ignoring the gossip and start answering it – with dates, records, and receipts. I tried every other reasonable approach first. The only option I refused to consider was quitting -and I will not do that.

In recently reviewed security footage from City Hall, Councilman James Chapman can be heard complaining that I will not communicate with him or email him and claiming that I, as Mayor, simply refuse to do so.

There is only one problem with that claim: the documented record shows exactly the opposite.

The communication was provided

On November 9, 2025, I sent every councilmember-including James Chapman and Kerry McIntyre-the information for their City email accounts. Each councilmember had a primary district address and additional aliases directed to the same City mailbox. I provided access instructions and offered to help them get connected.

Those messages establish three simple facts:

• The City accounts were created.
• The login information was provided.
• Assistance was offered-and repeatedly refused.

McIntyre appears to have configured his City email on his personal phone. Chapman has continued refusing to use his City email and has insisted that City business be sent to ar*****@***oo.com, an address presumably associated with a private business.

That was his choice-not a failure by the City to communicate.

The City provided the equipment, too

In November, the city provided cell phones to use for city business to separate personal and city business, but these were refused by McIntyre and Chapman. Then, in January, after the Council approved purchasing iPads for council use, I contacted every councilmember. I explained that the devices would be configured for City email, Microsoft Teams, SharePoint and electronic council packets. I also provided a form allowing each councilmember to select a device.

I personally configured the iPads and brought them to council meetings for Chapman and McIntyre.

Both refused to accept them.

On one occasion, I carried Chapman’s configured iPad to him as he was leaving a meeting. He mocked the effort, joked that he only wanted paper and refused to take the device. That is my firsthand account of what occurred in the council chambers.

These devices are not complicated, but I simplified them further so the applications and meeting documents councilmembers needed were immediately visible. There was no need to search through email folders or shuffle through stacks of paper.

They did not even have to take the devices home. An iPad could remain at City Hall-charged, updated and waiting for its assigned councilmember at every meeting.

The City created the account. The City purchased the equipment. I configured the device. I delivered it personally. I offered assistance.

A councilmember refusing all of that does not transform the refusal into a communication failure by the Mayor.

Technology supports open government

I believe in the Alabama Open Meetings Act. I believe the public’s business should be conducted openly, with proper notice and with decisions made in meetings where residents can observe their government.

Technology does not replace that responsibility. It helps us fulfill it.

Email, SharePoint, Teams and electronic council packets allow information to reach councilmembers more quickly. They provide time to review financial reports, proposed ordinances, resolutions, contracts and supporting documents before a public meeting begins. They also create a record of what was distributed and when it was provided.

The purpose is not to deliberate secretly over email or conduct public business outside an open meeting. The purpose is to make sure councilmembers enter the meeting informed and prepared to deliberate in public.

But technology is only effective when councilmembers are willing to use it.

I do not object to paper packets out of conviction, convenience or spite. If a councilmember prefers reading on paper, a packet can be printed. The problem is not paper.

The problem is arriving at a public meeting and flipping through the packet for the first time while citizens are waiting for informed decisions. Whether or not that was the intention, it creates the appearance that the material was not reviewed before the meeting.

A council meeting should be where prepared officials discuss and decide the public’s business-not where they first discover what is in the packet.

Information is regularly sent to Council

The email history shows that the City Clerk repeatedly distributed meeting materials to the Council, but in the last month, we have been without a clerk.

These were not vague notices saying documents might be available somewhere. They were actual agendas, packets, ordinances, resolutions, reports and applications provided for council review.

Even after he refused to use the official City account, I continued making additional efforts to send information to the address he demanded we use.

When the July 24 City Clerk applications became relevant again, I forwarded the original message on September 10 and explicitly added Chapman’s preferred ar*****@***oo.com address.

The review of my sent messages shows at least 16 emails from February through September 2026 in which ar*****@***oo.com appeared explicitly as a recipient.

Those messages involved:

• Corrected financial reports
• Access to City records
• Council meeting procedures
• The interim police-chief appointment
• Budget preparation and Council participation
• City Clerk applications
• Special-called meetings
• Administrative responsibilities
• Other substantive City business

The following emails were sent to ar*****@***oo.com:

• February 23, 2026 — “Re: Mayors Update”
• March 12, 2026 — “Re: Request for documents related to oversight of elected duties”
• March 22, 2026 — “Re: Dog grooming business in home with continuous issues”
• March 31, 2026 — “Re: Mayor’s Update”
• April 1, 2026 — “Interim Police Chief Appointment”
• April 22, 2026 — “Re: Request for Clarification on Recent Council Meeting Absences”
• April 27, 2026 — “Re: Special council meeting 4/27/26 @8pm”
• April 28, 2026 — “Re: Request for documents related to oversight of elected duties”
• April 29, 2026 — “Re: Request for documents related to oversight of elected duties”
• May 1, 2026 — “Re: Special council meeting 5/2/26 @6:45pm”
• July 9, 2026 — “Re: Property that was used for city events”
• August 5, 2026 — “Re: Upcoming budget”
• August 5, 2026 — “Re: Upcoming budget”
• September 10, 2026 — “Re: Assistance City Clerk and ALM Conference Registration Request”
• September 10, 2026 — “Fw: City Clerk Applications”
• September 10, 2026 — “Re: Assistance City Clerk and ALM Conference Registration Request”

This does not prove that Chapman opened or read every message. It proves that the information was sent to the address he insisted the City use.

No Mayor can force an elected official to accept a City device, sign into a City account, open an email, follow a SharePoint link or review a council packet before arriving at a meeting.

What I can do is create the accounts, provide the equipment, configure the devices, distribute the information, offer assistance and preserve the records.

The evidence shows that I did every one of those things.

Communication requires someone willing to participate

This problem is not limited to electronic communication.

I went out of my way to approach Councilman Kerry McIntyre at a football game and ask why he refused to speak with me.

His response was: “Why would I talk to you? You’re just going to do what you want anyway.”

I told him that we could not possibly do what he wanted if he refused to communicate and tell me what that was.

I asked whether his district was receiving improvements. He acknowledged that it was.

I also reminded him that the only specific request he had stated openly was that he wanted a sign at Dillard Park moved.

We moved the sign.

That conversation illustrates the problem clearly. I cannot consider a councilmember’s priorities if that councilmember refuses to communicate them. When a specific request was actually made, the City acted on it.

As for Chapman, the only significant request attributed to him that has reached me through an intermediary involved wanting the Police Department to stop or reduce enforcement activity.

Because that information came through an intermediary, I am identifying it for exactly what it is: a secondhand account, not a direct request Chapman made to me.

But if that account is accurate, the answer is no.

I will not direct police officers to stop performing their lawful duties to satisfy an elected official. Public safety and equal enforcement are not bargaining chips. If Chapman has a legitimate policy concern, he can communicate it directly, put it on the record and allow it to be discussed openly.

That is how responsible government works.

Refusing to speak with the Mayor and then sending complaints through other people is not communication. It is avoidance.

The record contradicts the complaint

The recent footage is revealing because Chapman’s complaint is not supported by the record.

He can be heard claiming that I do not communicate with him. Meanwhile, the records show that he was:

• Provided a City email account
• Given access instructions
• Offered technical assistance
• Issued a City-funded iPad
• Personally handed the configured device
• Included in Clerk distributions
• Sent council packets
• Contacted repeatedly at the private address he demanded we use

That is not a lack of communication.

That is a documented refusal to use the communication provided, followed by a complaint that communication was never provided.

I work from City Hall because that is where City business should be conducted. I am there for employees, residents and councilmembers who genuinely want to speak with me.

I do not work from City Hall because I am required to sit behind a particular desk every hour of the day. I choose to be present because service means showing up and doing the work-not merely talking about service when an audience is present.

Put more plainly: I run City Hall from City Hall-not from behind closed doors, a gas station, a group chat or the rumor mill.

I chose a better standard

I send monthly if not more regular written updates to the Council covering City finances, projects, operations, public safety and other matters they should be aware of.

During my previous five years of service, under three different mayors, I did not receive that kind of regular written update once. I submitted and paid for information requests and was still denied access to a fraction of the information I now routinely provide to this Council.

I chose to create a better standard.

I am available. I offer to help. I provide the records. I send the updates. I show up. I do the work.

I also checked, my city phone works.

The fact that a councilmember disagrees with me does not mean he was denied communication. The fact that he refused an account, rejected a device or failed to review a packet does not mean the information was withheld.

And while the footage makes it clear that I am frequently discussed when I am not in the room, the written record makes something else equally clear.

The claim that I refused to communicate is false.

You cannot refuse the City email, refuse the City device, ignore the council packet, decline direct conversation and then complain that nobody communicated with you.

Open government requires information to be provided.

Effective government requires elected officials willing to receive it, review it and participate.

The public deserves better than a performance.

They deserve the truth on the record.