The location of the absentee ballot box for the City of Selma’s August 24 election became a hot issue Monday night at the Selma City Council meeting.

The Rev. Glenn King, who issued a citizens request, asked to address the council on the issue.

“I would like for the counsel to look into moving the absentee ballots back into the court house so we can have a very fair election,” King said.

The location of the ballot box has a history.

After the 1992 election, then- mayoral candidate and current Selma Mayor James Perkins Jr. sued the city.

The court issued a consent decree, which both parties agreed with, that the absentee ballots would be placed in the court house for the 1996 and 2000 elections and that each candidate could appoint members to an election commission that would monitor the votes to ensure a fair process.

That consent decree expired for this election, meaning the box will be placed back in City Hall.

Both King and State Representative Yusef Salaam asked to address the council on the matter.

Salaam attended the meeting, but was late and was not recognized to speak.

Several council members backed King’s request to have the box moved, as Council President George Evans explained, to clear the air of any “myths or perceptions” that are out there about city officials.

However, since the box was moved by a court order last time, City Attorney Jimmy Nunn pointed out that state law by a court order last time, City Attorney Jimmy Nunn pointed out that state law provides where the box should be kept and the council may not have the legal authority to move it.

“I would need to check with The League of Municipalities,” Nunn said. “I think we need to find out whether or not it can be changed. We do know it was changed by court order. A judge could change it over to the courthouse.”

In fact, after quite a bit more debate, the council did eventually decided to recess their meeting at the end of the night and resume it on Tuesday after Nunn had spoken with league officials.

However, the discussion lasted quite some time before that resolution.

Perkins, Councilwomen Bennie Ruth Crenshaw and Jean Martin and Councilman Sam Randolph saw the request to move the box as an insult to City Clerk Lois Williams.

“That’s a slap in Ms. Williams’ face,” Randolph said. “I say we should stick with what the state law says.”

The debate was not a civil one.

At one point, Evans had to tell King he was out of order for making accusations about the mayor.

King apologized and Perkins later used the comment as an example of what he believes is motivating the request.

“I recognize the attack is against me, Rev. King made it clear,” he said when it appeared the council was going to move ahead. “I recognize this council has a history of overriding state law. It’s really the cause of why we are where we are. This council is striping the powers of the city clerk. It’s these kind of moves that really does harm to the city government, the presumption that Ms. Williams is going to do something illegal or inappropriate. Now you’re going to say that she is not trustworthy, that’s basically what you’re saying. Whoever they can run over and discredit to get to me they will, I apologize (to Ms. Williams).”

For his part, councilman James Durry said his motivation for supporting a move had nothing to do with Ms. Williams’ job performance.

“The way I feel in no way discredits the Mayor or Lois. I’m concerned about the people in the community that are concerned about (the absentee ballots),” Durry said. “The way I feel, if I’m in a position to know if something in the eyes of a lot of folks is going the wrong way, if it’s legal I would go ahead and change it.”

“It’s not legal,” Perkins countered.

Councilwoman Rita Sims Franklin offered a resolution stating that council ask a court official to change the location and allow each of the mayoral candidates an opportunity to name someone to an election commission.

Councilwoman Nancy Sewell seconded it.

“The resolution, in my opinion, supports the process we have done in the last two elections,” Sewell said. “We support and affirm the idea that the election process would be removed from city hall and give each candidate equity. We need to go on record as giving the appearance that it is fair.”

However after discussion, Crenshaw asked Evans a point of order about accepting a resolution that is not on the agenda.

“Either way we go with this is a losing situation,” Evans said. “Ms. Crenshaw has a good point as far as protocol. I would have to rule (the) motion out of order.”

After some debate, it was decided to put the meeting in recess, allow Nunn to speak with the League of Municipalities and re-adjourn sometime today, either 11 a.m. or 1 p.m. depending on when Nunn could get in contact with the league.

Other logistical problems were raised, including, the cost, the fact that the ballots have already been printed and are apparently mandated by law to go out today.

“It’s really a sad situation what has happened tonight,” Crenshaw said. “We’ve had two council meetings that they could have been dealt with (this). If they had brought it earlier, I would probably not have objected to it.”

Evans expressed frustration with the nature of the debate. “It’s a very unfortunate situation,” he said. “I wish we could move smoothly on things.”