09/01/2026
Howe Mayor is on the next agenda for a Censure vote. Billie Ingram- Howe City Council explains why.
There is a special called council meeting this Saturday.
It was called upon the application of at least three separate requests by council members. It was not called by the mayor.
This has been a lengthy and thorough process.
At last week’s council meeting the mayor chose not to join the council in executive session, but rather join a KTEN reporter outside the meeting to be interviewed. She also removed the possibility of any action items being taken after executive session by changing the agenda.
I have prepared a statement that I was going to read Saturday but my hand is being forced. In the middle of all of this, before everything could be found out and finalized, KTEN submitted an open records request for specific information that would only paint half the picture and those records are being released before the meeting. Half the picture is not the truth. As far as Im aware KTEN has only spoken to the mayor, no one else. As promised, I am being as transparent with you as Im legally allowed.
I modified my statement to where the chronology makes sense as its not Saturday, but my statement is below. In its entirety.
___________________________________________
STATEMENT TO THE CITIZENS OF HOWE
Before anyone makes a motion on this agenda item, I want to take a few minutes to speak directly to the citizens of Howe.
I want to begin by acknowledging the seriousness of what we are doing today.
Censure is not something that should be used casually. It should not be used because of a personality conflict, a disagreement over policy, political differences, or simply because we don’t like someone’s decisions.
Elected officials are going to disagree.
Council members are going to disagree with mayors. Mayors are going to disagree with council members. Administrators are going to disagree with elected officials.
That is government.
But there is a difference between disagreement and conduct that undermines the institution of government itself; and I believe we have reached that point.
The agenda item to censure Mayor Karla McDonald is not because EVERY decision she has made has been wrong.
This agenda to censure her is because there is now a documented pattern of conduct that has crossed the line from ordinary disagreement into conduct that has undermined the City’s chain of command, created confusion among our employees, interfered with the administration of the City’s affairs, damaged relationships within our government, and eroded the trust that must exist between the Mayor, this Council, the employees, and the citizens we represent.
And I want to be very clear:
This is not about protecting Monte Walker.
It is not about attacking Karla McDonald.
It is about protecting the institution of the City of Howe.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Walker
One of the most troubling issues before us concerns City Administrator Monte Walker’s application for employment with the City of Gunter.
According to Mr. Walker’s written statement and timeline, following a contentious conversation between himself and Mayor McDonald on June 11, he discovered on June 12 that he had been placed on the Council’s executive-session agenda.
He subsequently inquired about the City of Gunter City Administrator position and formally applied on June 15.
On June 16, Gunter Mayor Karen Souther emailed Mr. Walker’s resume from her city email account to her personal email account.
On June 19, Mayor McDonald submitted a Public Information Request for Mr. Walker’s resume, before having been informed by Mr. Walker he had applied for the position.
On June 22, Mr. Walker informed Mayor McDonald that he had applied with Gunter.
On June 23, Mr. Walker received multiple disciplinary write-ups. None of which had accompanying proof, or corroboration. The 1st and 3rd disciplinary action are on the agenda to be rescinded by the Council, if the vote approves; and the 2nd, the Mayor rescinded on her own after having the relevant policy explained to her and shown that it had not been violated
On June 30, the Mayor called me, and during this phone conversation explained that she was able to obtain a copy of Mr. Walker’s resume and application from someone closely related to or from within the City of Gunter. In this same phone call, admitted that she then filed a Public Information Request with Gunter AFTER receiving the documents to conceal the means by which she was able to obtain them.
July 2 — Mr. Walker received a negative annual evaluation from the Mayor. This review has not been seen or accepted by the council.
July 14 — Mr. Walker received a revised, albeit, still negative evaluation. This review has also not been seen or accepted by the council.
The timing of these events raises serious questions and I want to be responsible in how I characterize those questions.
The Council is not to determine whether a criminal statute was violated, that is not our job.
If there are questions regarding whether laws were violated in obtaining, transferring, or representing government information, or for, creating, presenting or using falsified government documents, those questions can be addressed by the appropriate legal authorities.
Our responsibility is different.
Our responsibility is to determine whether the conduct of an elected official was appropriate and consistent with the standards expected of that office.
And I believe the circumstances surrounding Mr. Walker’s resume warrant serious concern.
Particularly when those circumstances are considered together with everything that followed.
The timeline cannot simply be ignored
Though a timeline by itself does not prove intent, elected officials have a responsibility to recognize when circumstances create a serious appearance of retaliation and the appearance here is troubling.
What makes it even more troubling is that these events did not occur in isolation. They occurred alongside a much broader dispute over the administration of City Hall and affected not only City Secretary Katie Lowery, but other employees in City Hall.
Mrs. Lowery was only six weeks into her employment with the City of Howe when, according to her written statement, she was placed directly in the middle of a personnel matter involving her own supervisor, City Administrator Walker.
She stated that Mayor McDonald told her the City Council had directed the Mayor to issue a written reprimand to Mr. Walker and that Katie was required to witness it.
She described how uncomfortable that made her as an employee whose direct supervisor was the person being disciplined.
She further stated that after the write-up, Mayor McDonald told her that Mr. Walker had applied for the Gunter position and that she had obtained his resume and application.
Mrs. Lowery then described being asked to obtain information about Mr. Walker without his knowledge.
She further described a shared document created by the Mayor, concerning exit strategies for Mr. Walker, including an inventory of items in his office, his access, and notifications that would need to occur upon his departure.
She stated that she was told Mr. Walker would be leaving regardless of whether Gunter offered him the position or not.
Those statements are significant, because if an employee’s departure is being planned before that employee has been terminated, resigned, or accepted another position, then this Council has a legitimate reason to ask whether the outcome was being predetermined as the Council is the only entity with the authority to remove the City Administrator and that is not something we should take lightly.
Our employees should not have to choose sides
The City Secretary also described something that should concern every person reading this.
She described Mayor McDonald establishing a daily presence at City Hall and giving instructions to employees who were already under Mr. Walker’s legally authorized supervision as outlined by City Ordinances.
Mrs. Lowery described conflicting directions, being placed between the Mayor and the City Administrator, and uncertainty about who she was supposed to follow.
That is not fair to our employees.
A City Secretary should not have to wonder whether following the instructions of her direct supervisor will put her at odds with the Mayor.
A Permit Technician should not be placed in the middle of a dispute between two people in positions of authority.
And no City employee should feel that they have to choose a side to protect their job.
Our employees should be able to come to work, understand the chain of command, perform their jobs, and go home without being pulled into political or personal disputes.
That is the environment they deserve.
The authority of the City Council
The issue that I believe is particularly most serious.
Both Mr. Walker’s and Mrs. Lowery’s statement address representations that the Mayor told them the City Council had directed her to take certain actions.
Mr. Walker states that Mayor McDonald represented that the Council had directed her to write him up and directed her to establish an office at City Hall.
Mrs. Lowery independently described being told that the Council had directed the Mayor to take these actions and to “micromanage” Mr. Walker.
If the Council directed those actions, then we should be able to identify when this Council made that decision. If the Council did not direct those actions, then the authority of this entire governing body was being invoked to justify actions that this body had not authorized. That is a serious matter.
Because the Mayor does not possess the authority to speak on behalf of the entire Council when the Council itself has not acted.
None of us do. The citizens elected this Council as a governing body. Our authority cannot be borrowed, assumed, or manufactured to justify an individual official’s actions.
The chain of command exists for a reason
Mr. Walker’s letter points to Section 1.E of the City of Howe Code of Ordinances, which establishes the City Administrator as the City’s chief administrative officer and assigns responsibility for the proper administration of the City’s affairs and supervision of City employees.
That structure exists for a reason.
It does not mean the Mayor can never question the City Administrator.
It does not mean the Council can never hold the City Administrator accountable.
And it certainly does not mean the City Administrator is above scrutiny.
It means there is an established governmental structure for addressing those issues.
If the City Administrator is failing to perform his duties, that matter can be brought before the Council and the Council can address it. If an employee violates policy, the appropriate process should be followed. If the Mayor has concerns about City operations, those concerns can be brought before the appropriate governing authority.
What cannot become normal is an informal system in which employees receive competing instructions, personnel matters are handled through unofficial channels, and the established chain of command is disregarded whenever there is disagreement. That is how government becomes dysfunctional; and when City government becomes dysfunctional, the citizens ultimately pay the price.
The Mayor’s own statement
I also want to acknowledge the statement Mayor McDonald provided concerning the executive session.
The Mayor stated that she believed some of the matters anticipated for discussion had previously been discussed during the July 21 executive session, from which she says she was asked to leave and excluded.
She stated that following that meeting she was subjected to conduct she considered derogatory, hostile, and intimidating. Instead of vague, unsubstantiated claims, I would prefer these types of accusations to come with facts, especially when being shared with the news and social media. Every discussion with the Mayor concerning these incidents has been had with numerous witnesses present that will be able to verify her claims.
I want to be clear, if any member of this Council believes they have been treated improperly, those concerns deserve to be heard but claims of that nature should not be made without proof or verifiable evidence.
This is not about personalities
I know there will be people who look at this situation and say that it is simply a personal dispute between the Mayor and the City Administrator. I disagree.
Personal disputes stay personal when they remain between the individuals involved. This stopped being personal when City employees were pulled into it. It stopped being personal when the authority of this Council was invoked. It stopped being personal when the chain of command became confused. It stopped being personal when personnel matters became the subject of competing instructions and investigations; and it stopped being personal when the functioning of City Hall itself began to suffer.
At that point, it became the business of this Council; and ultimately, it became the business of the citizens.
Why I believe censure is appropriate
I believe the record before us presents legitimate concerns regarding:
* The circumstances surrounding the acquisition of Mr. Walker’s resume and the subsequent Public Information Request;
* The timing of disciplinary actions and evaluations following his application for another position;
* The appearance of retaliation created by that sequence of events;
* Representations that the City Council directed actions when members of this body dispute that those directions were ever given;
* Direct involvement in the day-to-day supervision of employees who were already under the City Administrator;
* The placement of employees in the middle of a dispute between the Mayor and City Administrator;
* The reported creation of “exit strategies” concerning Mr. Walker before his employment had formally ended;
* And the cumulative effect of all of this on employee morale, the City’s chain of command, and the effective administration of the City’s business.
Any one of these issues deserves attention; taken together, they demand accountability.
Censure is accountability—not removal
I want the citizens of Howe to understand what censure does and does not mean, if you are unaware. Censure is not removal from office. It is not a criminal conviction. It is not a declaration that Mayor McDonald is a bad person. It is not a declaration that every decision she has made has been a bad decision.
It is a formal statement by this governing body that conduct by one of its elected officials has fallen below the standard this Council believes the citizens of Howe should expect from that office.
That distinction matters…Because we are not a criminal court…We are not deciding someone’s criminal liability…We are fulfilling our responsibility as elected representatives.
What standard do we want for Howe?
Every person who sits at the council table should ask themselves one question:
“What standard do we want to establish for the future of Howe?”
* Do we want employees to be afraid that they will become involved in political disputes?
* Do we want employees receiving conflicting instructions from different people in authority?
* Do we want Council authority invoked when the Council itself has not acted?
* Do we want personnel decisions to be influenced by personal disputes?
* Do we want elected officials to believe that their position allows them to operate outside the structure established by this government?
I don’t; and I don’t believe the citizens of Howe do either.
My responsibility to the citizens
I did not take this position because it is easy. It isn’t. I understand that some people will disagree with me. I understand that some people will believe this is political. Some will say we should simply move on. But I believe leadership sometimes means doing what is difficult rather than what is comfortable. We were elected to represent the citizens of Howe.
Not individual personalities.
Not friendships.
Not political alliances.
Not personal agendas.
The citizens.
And sometimes protecting the institution requires holding someone within that institution accountable.
That applies to the Mayor.
It applies to the City Administrator.
It applies to every Council Member.
And it applies to me.
I would expect nothing less from anyone sitting at this table with me.
We have to draw a line
I believe that failing to address this conduct would establish a dangerous precedent.
It would tell our employees that they may have to choose sides.
It would tell future elected officials that the authority of their office can be used without consequence; and it would tell our citizens that we are willing to tolerate dysfunction in their government rather than confront it.
I am not willing to send that message.
Saturday is not about revenge.
It is not about embarrassing anyone.
It is not about winning a political fight.
It is about drawing a line.
A line that says our employees deserve a professional workplace.
A line that says the City’s chain of command must be respected.
A line that says the authority of this Council cannot be invoked when this Council has not acted.
A line that says personnel matters must be handled through appropriate governmental processes.
And a line that says elected office comes with authority—but it also comes with responsibility.
The office of Mayor belongs to the citizens of Howe.
The authority that comes with that office belongs to the citizens of Howe.
The trust that comes with that office belongs to the citizens of Howe.
None of us—own that office.
We are only entrusted with it.
And when that trust is damaged, we have an obligation to acknowledge it and take action to restore it. I believe Howe deserves a government that operates with professionalism, transparency, accountability, and respect for the structure established by law and ordinance.
I believe our employees deserve better.
I believe this Council deserves better.
And most importantly, I believe the citizens of Howe deserve better.
