The citizens of Glasgow have a lot of questions, but the town council and staff have been largely short of answers. And despite a unanimous Council vote at its July meeting to hold a work session to provide those answers, as of Tuesday afternoon no work session has been scheduled.
“I want answers to these questions,” Town Council member Natalie Harris, who made the motion to See Glasgow , page B10 hold the work session, told The News-Gazette in an interview last week. “I want those questions answered for the Council, the town, the community, everybody. If you don’t have anything to hide, why not answer the questions for the Council and the citizens?”
Harris told The News-Gazette that Town Manager Allyson Finchum has refused to participate in the work session and has not advertised it. She also said that, after the July 14 meeting, Finchum said to her, “You’re going to get yourselves in trouble. Good luck answering those questions.”
The News-Gazette sent Finchum several questions related to concerns raised by citizens at the July 14 meeting, and specifically asked about these comments she allegedly made to Harris. She did not respond to the questions or offer any comment. Glasgow Mayor Paul Williams also did not respond to requests for comments on the issues raised by citizens.
The concerns began being raised around the recently passed 2026-27 budget, with several citizens attending a special meeting on June 23 in hopes of asking questions about the budget, only to be told that the time to do so had been at the public hearing held during Council’s regular meeting on June 9.
Charles Gibbs, one of the residents who spoke to Council at the July 14 meeting, raised concerns about the advertisement for the budget hearing that ran in May 20 edition of The News-Gazette for the June 9 public hearing.
He noted that there were discrepancies within the advertisement, including the fact that the total revenue for the general fund advertised was $657,173 while the total for the line items listed in the advertisement add up to $651,301 – a difference of $5,872.
The advertised expenditures for the water fund also didn’t add up to the total amount advertised. The advertised total is $327,350 and the actual total of the itemized expenses listed is $317,350, leaving $10,000 unaccounted for. The advertisement also didn’t include a $300,000 capital investment plan line-item that is in the budget – which is available on the town’s website – or any corresponding revenue transfer.
All of these issues, he said, along with other issues of placing and formatting not meeting requirements of state code, mean that the budget as advertised and approved, did not meet state requirements and could be subject to legal challenge, and encouraged Council to readvertise the budget and hold a new public hearing to address the concerns of citizens.
“I am not pushing for a disruptive legal challenge,” he said at the July 14 meeting. “Instead I propose a transparent path forward to protect the town and make our budget process iron clad. …We are … operating under a budget that remains legally unratified due to jurisdictional notice defects. Because this process violated state law, our daily expenditures are technically unauthorized. This creates immediate outside liability to the federal government, legal watch dog groups or any particularly litigious citizen.”
In addition to his concerns related to the budget, Gibbs also raised issues of public transparency and the availability of meeting packets and minutes through the town’s website. The minutes from the meetings from July of 2024 to May of 2026 were recently made available through the website, but there are no packets or agendas available for those meetings, and there are not minutes or agenda packets for any meetings between May 2020 and June 2024 posted on the town site at all.
Another point of concern for citizens was who holds the position of town manager. Earlier this year, at the March 10 Council meeting, Town Council voted to hire Mike Finchum – Allyson Finchum’s husband – as interim town manager “for the indefinite period of time that Allyson Finchum is reassigned to [the position of] Assistant to the Mayor and Town Council to work on special projects, code enforcement and other duties,” according to the minutes from the meeting. That motion, made by Brandall Branch and seconded by Marcie Hill, passed in a 5-0-1 vote, with Harris abstaining. According to the minutes, Allyson Finchum was to begin her role as assistant to the mayor and Town Council on May 4.
In the minutes of the April 14 meeting, both Allyson and Mike Finchum are listed as the only town staff in attendance. Allyson is identified as the town manager/town clerk and Mike is identified as the interim town manager/ assistant to the mayor and Town Council. The minutes for the May 12 meeting only list Mike Finchum, interim town manager, as the lone member of town staff in attendance.
Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that Allyson Finchum has, as of July 14, resumed the role of town manager without any vote or announcement from Council. Harris told The News-Gazette that she was not notified of Finchum’s return to the town manager seat prior to the July 14 meeting.
“I’m not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, but I believe this raises questions about accountability and public trust,” Mary Reynolds, another concerned citizen, said of the situation during the public comments portion of the meeting.
The News-Gazette sent Finchum several questions related to her and her husband’s positions with the town and did not receive any answers or comments.
Reynolds also asked for clarification on the role Finchum had taken related to special projects, specifically wanting to know when it was created and if it had been advertised and opened to qualified applicants and also raised concerns about the usage of a vehicle recently purchased by the town, asking when the purchase was approved and if usage records for the vehicle were available.
Another citizen, Wendy Ramsey, raised concerns about the state of the town playground, noting the disrepair of some of the equipment and damage to the fence surrounding it.
“A clean, safe and well-maintained playground is important to our children and reflects the pride and care we have for our town,” she said. “I understand the town has recently purchased the church building and plans to make improvements to it. While improvement to town facilities [is] important, I believe that maintaining and improving the safety of our existing public spaces – especially those we have for our children – should be a priority.”
After her remarks, Williams took responsibility for the damage to the fence, saying he had damaged it while mowing at the playground.
Other citizens spoke on a variety of concerns. One asked about a budget line-item related to health insurance when the town had voted earlier this year to discontinue providing health insurance to town employees. Another requested the terms of a lease for space in the old town library which the town recently purchased and is renting to Deb Farina, chair of the town planning commission, for an antique store. Former Council member Jade Harris – Natalie Harris’s daughter – addressed Council and said that they should return to the practice of having a town attorney who attends the Council meetings.
Since the July 14 meeting, both Reynolds and Gibbs have announced that they are running for a seat on the Town Council in this year’s election as write-in candidates.
Glasgow Town Council meets again on Tuesday, Aug. 11, at 7 p.m. in the old Presbyterian Church at 908 Anderson St.
