Parkersburg Council President Removes Critic from Committees, Sparking ‘Good Ol’ Boys’ Concerns

Parkersburg Council President Removes Critic from Committees, Sparking ‘Good Ol’ Boys’ Concerns (Opinion)

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. — Councilwoman Wendy Tuck has been abruptly removed from two key Parkersburg City Council committees by Council President Mike Reynolds, just weeks after Tuck was appointed to those positions and shortly after she publicly criticized the city’s administration. The sudden shake-up – announced in Reynolds’ absence at an April 8 council meeting – has drawn sharp scrutiny and raised questions about political retaliation. Observers are asking why Tuck was deemed qualified to serve in these roles only a short time ago, yet was ousted now that she’s voiced dissent, fueling concerns that a “good ol’ boys club” mentality may be taking hold at City Hall.

Sudden Committee Ouster Raises Questions

The committee reassignments were delivered via a written communication from Reynolds, who did not attend the April 8 meeting. In it, he announced that Councilwoman Tuck would be removed from the Finance and Personnel Committees, effective immediately. Tuck had originally been appointed by Reynolds at the start of the year to chair the Personnel Committee and serve on the Finance Committee , making the mid-term shake-up highly unusual. Reynolds’ memo stated that Councilman Chris Rexroad would replace Tuck on the Finance Committee, and Councilwoman Sharon Kuhl would take over as chair of Personnel, with Councilman Dave McCrady as that committee’s vice chair . The abrupt reversal left many in City Council chambers stunned.

Councilwoman Tuck herself said she was “shocked” by the announcement and had received no prior warning or explanation for the demotion . “As council president, he should have discussed his concerns with me before having it announced at a council meeting where he was not present,” Tuck said afterward, describing the incident as “a serious failure of leadership” . The manner of the removal – delivered in absentia and without dialogue – has only intensified criticism of Reynolds’ leadership style and motives.

Criticism Branded as an ‘Attack on the Administration’

When pressed for a rationale, Council President Reynolds defended his decision by accusing Tuck of undermining the city’s leadership. “It is a shame that we have a councilwoman who throws the administration and most other council people under the bus in an attempt to look better,” Reynolds said, referring to Tuck’s recent conduct . He claimed Tuck made multiple “slanderous” remarks and social media posts targeting fellow council members and city officials. Among the examples Reynolds cited was Tuck sharing information about how citizens could recall council members – a reference to Tuck posting about the procedure to remove elected officials from office – after a controversial rule change that limited what topics the public can discuss at council meetings .

Reynolds’ characterization of Tuck’s behavior as an “attempt to look better” by attacking “the administration” has raised eyebrows. In Parkersburg’s council parlance, “the administration” essentially means Mayor Tom Joyce and his team – meaning Tuck’s true offense, in Reynolds’ view, may have been daring to criticize the mayor’s office. Tuck’s critics in city government have implicitly equated her push for more transparency and public input with a personal attack on Mayor Joyce. The council president’s statement underscores that Tuck’s recent vocal criticism of city policies (and by extension, the mayor) was the catalyst for her removal.

For her part, Tuck flatly denies any personal attacks. She acknowledges being an outspoken advocate on policy issues and transparency, but insists she has “no problem criticizing actions” while being “pretty careful not to criticize people” . Indeed, Tuck’s public posts in recent weeks focused on informing citizens and encouraging engagement. In one Facebook post, she invited residents to meet her during informal “office hours” at a local restaurant, emphasizing that open **communication was “more important than ever” now that the public can “only speak at City Council about what’s on the agenda or be threatened with arrest” under the new meeting rules . That comment referenced the council’s controversial decision to restrict public comment – a decision Tuck opposed.

Reynolds saw such actions as an unjustified attack on colleagues. He accused Tuck of throwing “most other council people under the bus” by suggesting that those who supported the speech restrictions could be subject to a recall campaign. However, Tuck defends sharing recall information as simply educating citizens about their rights. “If I gave information, it was information,” she said, noting that providing facts about recall procedures “does not constitute criticism” of individuals . To Tuck, shining light on government processes is part of her commitment to transparency – but to Reynolds, it crossed a line into disloyalty.

Retaliation Fears and ‘Good Ol’ Boys Club’ Atmosphere

The timing of Tuck’s ouster – coming just weeks after she publicly challenged City Hall – has many questioning whether this was a good-faith leadership decision or outright retaliation. Nothing about Tuck’s professional qualifications changed between January, when Reynolds appointed her to the finance and personnel committees, and April, when he removed her. The only real change was Tuck’s emergence as one of the council’s most vocal critics of the current administration’s policies. This discrepancy is prompting pointed questions about motive: Was Tuck suddenly deemed unfit to serve, or was she being punished for speaking out?

Some of Tuck’s supporters and government watchdogs suggest the latter. They see Reynolds’ move as sending a clear message to other council members: criticize the mayor or the majority, and you’ll be sidelined. “It sure looks like retaliation rather than any legitimate personnel matter,” one local observer commented privately, noting that Tuck had been entrusted with committee leadership just a few months prior. The episode has amplified concerns that Parkersburg’s city government is veering toward a “good ol’ boys club” culture – an insular circle of officials who protect each other and shut down challenges to their authority. The fact that Tuck, a woman known for championing openness, was unceremoniously cut out of power by a group of mostly male colleagues has only fed that narrative for some residents.

Compounding these worries is Reynolds’ recent reputation for heavy-handed tactics. In council meetings this year, he has drawn criticism for what some call a bullying leadership style – silencing critics, strictly enforcing speaking rules, and brooking little dissent. Reynolds has countered that he’s simply enforcing decorum and guarding against misinformation. Yet his very public clash with Tuck seems to reinforce the perception of a bully at the helm, using his authority to quash a dissenting voice on council. Is Reynolds’ removal of Tuck an isolated incident, or part of a broader pattern of intimidation? That question looms large in the minds of many attending City Hall meetings. Even some who initially supported Reynolds are now uneasy. (Tuck herself voted for Reynolds to become council president in January, believing at the time that he could run meetings “professionally [and] respectfully” . “He wants to be treated with respect – we all do,” Tuck said of Reynolds, “[but] this was a serious failure of leadership” .)

Chilling Effect on Democracy and Free Speech

The controversy surrounding Tuck’s removal does not stand in isolation – it comes amid a larger battle over free speech and open government in Parkersburg. In March, Reynolds led a 6-3 council vote to restrict the topics citizens can address during the public forum portion of council meetings, limiting them to agenda items only . Tuck was one of only three council members who opposed this clampdown on public comment . Critics argue the rule change was a brazen attempt to insulate the council and Mayor from inconvenient questions or criticism. Reynolds and his allies claimed it was needed to keep meetings orderly and on-topic, but the effect was to muzzle residents who wished to raise other concerns.

The very first meeting after that rule was enacted showed its harsh reality. On March 25, Reynolds ordered two speakers removed from the podium when they dared stray from agenda topics; one man – reportedly a local veteran – was warned by a police officer that he could face a trespassing arrest if he didn’t stop talking and leave the chambers . “That happened,” Tuck noted bluntly, referencing the incident as evidence of why she felt compelled to speak out . The sight of a citizen (and military veteran) being threatened with arrest for voicing concerns struck many as fundamentally un-American. Now, with Tuck’s committee purge, the message from city leadership appears to be that even elected officials are not safe from retribution if they challenge the status quo.

Legal and civil rights experts are also sounding alarms. The ACLU of West Virginia has warned the Parkersburg council that some of its measures may be crossing constitutional lines. “The ability to criticize government officials is part of the foundation of our democracy,” said Aubrey Sparks, legal director of ACLU-WV, in a recent statement. “Free speech by nature includes criticism of government officials. Parkersburg City Council has a choice: They can grow thicker skin or we’ll see them in court.”   The ACLU’s admonition came in the form of a letter after council imposed further rules barring citizens from mentioning individual officials’ names during public comments. While that specific policy is separate from Tuck’s case, the underlying principle is the same – suppressing criticism of public officials strikes at core democratic freedoms.

Tuck’s removal has thus become a rallying point for concerns about transparency and accountability in Parkersburg. If a council member can be stripped of responsibilities for voicing an unpopular opinion, what does that signal to ordinary citizens? Local activists fear a chilling effect, where people hold their tongues rather than risk the wrath of the city’s power brokers. Retaliation against an elected representative, simply for speaking her mind, raises the specter of a government more interested in silencing dissent than serving the public. As one incredulous resident put it on social media, “Is this still the United States?” The question may be rhetorical, but it hangs over the Parkersburg City Council with very real weight.

In the end, the fallout from Wendy Tuck’s ouster goes beyond one committee assignment. It has exposed simmering tensions over who wields power in Parkersburg and how far city leaders will go to snuff out criticism. With the next council meeting set for this evening, all eyes will be on how Reynolds and his allies address the growing public discontent. Will they double down, or step back in the face of community concerns? For now, Parkersburg’s citizens are left to ponder unsettling questions about motive, fairness, and the state of local democracy – and to wonder whether open dissent and honest debate still have a place in their city government, or whether the “team” in power prefers to operate more like a closed club. The answers may determine Parkersburg’s political character for years to come.

By Josh Heart, Huntington | Contributor

Mock City Council Meeting Set for Students

Sow + Grow Together, in collaboration with PCC, is hosting a mock City Council meeting for students on Tuesday, April 22 at 5:00 pm. All local students (grades 6-12) are welcome to come and participate regardless of school district or type of education.

We sat down with Cari Talarico for all of the details!

Pkb Independent: WHO IS Sow & Grow Together ??

SGT: We at SGT are a small group of families who are comprised of business owners, entrepreneurs, educators, and much more. We believe in cultivating educational opportunities to learn new skills or experience new things. We love to learn, teach what we learn, and grow in knowledge together.

PKB Independent : What inspired you to create this event with Sow & Grow Together and the City Council?

SGT: Oof this is a long answer.  You really have to know the heart of the families behind Sow & Grow Together (SGT) to understand this. First, we are a little crazy and love adding more crazy ideas to our plate. We love learning, problem solving, and what we learn, we love to teach and share with others. Many of us also homeschool, and love having our children learn alongside us.

How this ties with the city council is a story. An event caught our attention which drew 2 of the families to a council meeting. As we watched the council, we realized that we should be more involved in our community and know what is going on. However, we quickly learned that we didn’t know or understand much of how it ran.So we started learning. We called and met with Councilwoman Sharon Kuhl. She sat with us for over 3 hours answering questions, not counting all of the phone calls.

As we learned and we watched, we noticed a disconnect between the average community member and the council. Many would come into meetings for Hot topic reasons and seemed to be as lost as we had been on how things were run. Unfortunately, this is where conversation for growth and needs can get lost. If someone only knows what they have heard and don’t understand why it is the way it is. That can get frustrating on the public side. Then if someone comes in and says the wrong thing or the wrong way they can come off to council as disrespectful, or just appearing to not know what they are talking about, and not taken seriously.  This is a communication barrier.

All of this led to me going and speaking at the public forum on the importance of education and transparency. The importance of cultivating and educating others and the next generations.Building the bridge to connect what was lost, so that others will understand how the city is run.

 Told you it was a long answer!

PKB Independent : Who is the target audience for this event, and why do you feel it’s important for them to engage in local government?

SGT: The target age is Middle and High School.So 6th-12th grade. We feel it's important for them to know that their voices matter, and how to use it productively. What they think matters . I want them to know that if they want to they could be a council member, or if they just wanted to be an active citizen. That is okay and they can do that too.

PKB Independent :How did the collaboration with Parkersburg City Council come about?

SGT: After the meeting was over that I spoke at, Councilwoman Dr. Dailey approached me to ask me some questions, and I let her know that I wasn’t just up there speaking but we had some ideas to help. I told her about the idea to do an educational event to help people understand how our city government worked and including the schools.Dr.Dailey and Mrs.Kuhl mentioned it to other council members. This led to little talks before and after council meetings and then a team formed.

The Team in the meetings consisted of PCC: Sharon Kuhl, Dr. Cathy Dailey, Zak Huffman, Chris Rexroad, and Andrew Borkowski. From SGT: Cari Talarico, Chris Smith, and Audriana Smith. (We had others helping not at the meetings as well) Within one meeting, Young Voices was formed!! A hands on government experience for students. Hands-on experience is an SGT thing for sure!  In the past it has turned a simple book into a transformed room bringing the book to life to make an imprint on our kids for the love of reading! We know how much more learning comes to life when they are a part of it instead of just watching or reading. So the councilmen broke down how everything runs in the meetings and why it is that way, and then the kids get to come in and have their own mock meeting. They are the ones calling the shots.They get to do the votes, or speak about why they should or should not vote a certain way. It's all for them.

PKB Independent :Can you walk us through what students will experience during the day?

SGT: Sure! When the students (Public, Private, or Homeschooled) get there we will have a welcome for them and then we will get a tour to see what happens and where. They will get to meet the Mayor and council members, learn how things work, and then we will start the mock meeting. This is  where they can either be an audience member, a speaker, or a council member. After the meeting we will have a Q&A about what all they saw or did during the meeting. Last, we will follow it up with the one extra thing that makes learning so much more fun…snacks.

Important Side note: There will be a certified ASL Interpreter there to make sure all students are welcomed!

PKB Independent :What do you hope students take away from touring council chambers and participating in the mock meeting?

SGT: I hope they walk away with an understanding of how it runs, but most importantly a belief in themselves that they have something important to bring to the table. Their ideas may be what's needed in a future problem. Their voice may be the voice of reason in a crisis. They may be a council member or an engaged citizen. The point is that they matter to us, our community, and our future- so I want them to believe that themselves.

PKB Independent :When and where is the event?

SGT: Tuesday April 22nd 5-7pm in Council Chambers at

1 Government Square, Parkersburg,WV 26101

PKB Independent :How do you register?

SGT: you can email us at  sow.grow.together@gmail.com 

Should City Councils be Nonpartisan? A Resident Weighs In

RESPONSE 1: Donna Sue, District 4 Pkb

In theory, making City Council a non partisan kinda deal would be amazing. In reality, if you put makeup on a pig, it is still going to oink. Humans are fickle creatures that seem to like labels, even if it means changing what the label means. I've seen many claim to be a Republican or a Democrat, yet once elected, their voting records or sponsorship of bills reflect anything.

What our city needs is less restrictions affiliated with the City Council, especially in reference to the meetings. What we are seeing right now looks to be an authoritarian strong hold on the legislative process. We have a clique of individuals that claimed they wanted to represent the constituents of their district, then voted to gag their peers during the meeting by removing Council Forum, and also voted to gag their constituents by restricting topics allowed to be discussed during Public Forum.

Citizens are outraged and will continue to push back because they feel the Council Representatives are alienating them, and power tripping for lack of a better phrase, and I have to agree. Just because a public servant can do something doesn't mean they should. One has to wonder what topics they are trying to keep out of the public forum by limiting topics.

Could it be they do not want to hear from the employees of the city anymore? That's some BS because their raises are dependent on the legislative process. How can one have pride in their city if they are an employee and then a panel of 9 that have very little idea of what they actually do for the city now decide when they feel it is appropriate that they deserve a raise?!? That should fall under the supervisor's responsibility and be a yearly evaluation. It is not fair to have cost of living adjustments recognized at a national level, yet we keep our employees stuck at a rate until whenever...potentially years until someone reminds these folks that they can't afford basic necessities. Again. Supervisors like Department Heads should have that say, as they are the ones who present budget requests and know their employees and needs best....

Or could it be the fact that a former Parkersburg City Council Rep has asked for accountability within the Police Department for an accident that claimed his son's life? I have seen in videos of past Council meetings, after JR Carpenter was no longer a sitting Council Rep, ASKING for accountability from misteps in the investigative process of an accident that claimed his son's life. This is something from his words he seems to be trying to make sure what went wrong with his son's case is addressed to be sure it doesn't happen in future cases, and that is commendable. Most people would run and sue without trying for a change in process only caring about themselves, but this man has tried to get the issue fixed and now all of the sudden he can't speak on the topic in Public Forum as it is not on the agenda. Coincidence? I very highly doubt it.

City Council meetings on the regular are dull and just small ordinances and resolutions to keep things moving in the city. They are important, don't get me wrong, but past history can show very few people would attend or even speak in Public Forum, yet a majority decided because they could change it they should, and that is morally wrong in my opinion. That is where it is evident there is a clique in place, as if the ones who chose to abruptly adjourn the last meeting didn't already make that obvious, in the videos there are blank stares looking around at each other kind of like they are trying to find the leader to make a movement. It smells of an orchestrated event, and that's fine. It showed the general public what a few of us already knew. Some that are in those seats do not care about what the citizens think.

How does the City of Parkersburg thrive from here? City Council Representatives can't even use Council Forum for up to 3 minutes to put on the record, recorded in the minutes, what concerns their constituents have nor the progress they have in their districts, nor any positive feedback. Elected officials who are supposed to care about our city and be good stewards of our tax dollars did this. These representatives all but asked for the outcry from their constituents. They also have the power to be honest that they made a mistake and introduce/sponsor legislation to reverse previous actions on Council and Public Forum so meetings can get back to being focused on moving forward positively in Parkersburg.

__________________

RESPONSE 2: Chris Smith, District 6 Pkb

I think the bigger issue isn’t a partisan issue, but a visibility issue. We can say something is non-partisan, but unless a survey is conducted by the city and a vote is forced by the wants and desires of the constituents, some personal opinions will always trickle in.

What is needed more is visibility. What do possible council people actually think and believe? Where does their heart lie? Does the newspaper conduct in depth interviews on all potential candidates before elections? Do local elections/media handle or operate debates or town halls for those running? Information needs to be at someone’s fingertips to make informed decisions instead of voting based on name recognition, history, or the old “he’s a friend of a friend’s uncle.”

Should the council operate itself solely as a voice of the people? Of course. But we get to that point by electing those in that have a true heart of and for the people. And how do we know that? We learn all we can about those running before they get to office.

Should City Councils be Nonpartisan? A Resident Weighs In

RESPONSE 1: Donna Sue, District 4 Pkb

In theory, making City Council a non partisan kinda deal would be amazing. In reality, if you put makeup on a pig, it is still going to oink. Humans are fickle creatures that seem to like labels, even if it means changing what the label means. I've seen many claim to be a Republican or a Democrat, yet once elected, their voting records or sponsorship of bills reflect anything.

What our city needs is less restrictions affiliated with the City Council, especially in reference to the meetings. What we are seeing right now looks to be an authoritarian strong hold on the legislative process. We have a clique of individuals that claimed they wanted to represent the constituents of their district, then voted to gag their peers during the meeting by removing Council Forum, and also voted to gag their constituents by restricting topics allowed to be discussed during Public Forum.

Citizens are outraged and will continue to push back because they feel the Council Representatives are alienating them, and power tripping for lack of a better phrase, and I have to agree. Just because a public servant can do something doesn't mean they should. One has to wonder what topics they are trying to keep out of the public forum by limiting topics.

Could it be they do not want to hear from the employees of the city anymore? That's some BS because their raises are dependent on the legislative process. How can one have pride in their city if they are an employee and then a panel of 9 that have very little idea of what they actually do for the city now decide when they feel it is appropriate that they deserve a raise?!? That should fall under the supervisor's responsibility and be a yearly evaluation. It is not fair to have cost of living adjustments recognized at a national level, yet we keep our employees stuck at a rate until whenever...potentially years until someone reminds these folks that they can't afford basic necessities. Again. Supervisors like Department Heads should have that say, as they are the ones who present budget requests and know their employees and needs best....

Or could it be the fact that a former Parkersburg City Council Rep has asked for accountability within the Police Department for an accident that claimed his son's life? I have seen in videos of past Council meetings, after JR Carpenter was no longer a sitting Council Rep, ASKING for accountability from misteps in the investigative process of an accident that claimed his son's life. This is something from his words he seems to be trying to make sure what went wrong with his son's case is addressed to be sure it doesn't happen in future cases, and that is commendable. Most people would run and sue without trying for a change in process only caring about themselves, but this man has tried to get the issue fixed and now all of the sudden he can't speak on the topic in Public Forum as it is not on the agenda. Coincidence? I very highly doubt it.

City Council meetings on the regular are dull and just small ordinances and resolutions to keep things moving in the city. They are important, don't get me wrong, but past history can show very few people would attend or even speak in Public Forum, yet a majority decided because they could change it they should, and that is morally wrong in my opinion. That is where it is evident there is a clique in place, as if the ones who chose to abruptly adjourn the last meeting didn't already make that obvious, in the videos there are blank stares looking around at each other kind of like they are trying to find the leader to make a movement. It smells of an orchestrated event, and that's fine. It showed the general public what a few of us already knew. Some that are in those seats do not care about what the citizens think.

How does the City of Parkersburg thrive from here? City Council Representatives can't even use Council Forum for up to 3 minutes to put on the record, recorded in the minutes, what concerns their constituents have nor the progress they have in their districts, nor any positive feedback. Elected officials who are supposed to care about our city and be good stewards of our tax dollars did this. These representatives all but asked for the outcry from their constituents. They also have the power to be honest that they made a mistake and introduce/sponsor legislation to reverse previous actions on Council and Public Forum so meetings can get back to being focused on moving forward positively in Parkersburg.

__________________

RESPONSE 2: Chris Smith, District 6 Pkb

I think the bigger issue isn’t a partisan issue, but a visibility issue. We can say something is non-partisan, but unless a survey is conducted by the city and a vote is forced by the wants and desires of the constituents, some personal opinions will always trickle in.

What is needed more is visibility. What do possible council people actually think and believe? Where does their heart lie? Does the newspaper conduct in depth interviews on all potential candidates before elections? Do local elections/media handle or operate debates or town halls for those running? Information needs to be at someone’s fingertips to make informed decisions instead of voting based on name recognition, history, or the old “he’s a friend of a friend’s uncle.”

Should the council operate itself solely as a voice of the people? Of course. But we get to that point by electing those in that have a true heart of and for the people. And how do we know that? We learn all we can about those running before they get to office.

WV House Advances Bill to Ban DEI Programs Across Public Institutions

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The West Virginia House of Delegates is poised to take a final vote on Senate Bill 474, a sweeping measure that would ban nearly all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across state agencies, public universities, and K-12 schools.

The bill, which has already passed the Senate, prohibits state-funded entities from offering services, opportunities, or preferences based on race, ethnicity, sex, or country of origin—except where required by federal law. If signed into law, it would effectively dismantle DEI-focused positions and programming across West Virginia’s public institutions.

Supporters of the bill argue that DEI programs amount to government-sponsored discrimination. “Taxpayer dollars should not be used to divide people into categories,” said Delegate Travis Miller (R-Raleigh). “This bill levels the playing field and ensures no West Virginian is treated differently based on their identity.”

But critics warn the bill could have unintended consequences, including suppressing outreach programs and stifling representation efforts for marginalized groups. “This is not about equality—it’s about erasing efforts to correct long-standing imbalances,” said Dr. Monique Harris, a professor at West Virginia University. “DEI initiatives aren’t about special treatment, they’re about equal access to opportunity.”

Though framed as a move toward neutrality, the legislation has stirred strong debate in a state where racial and gender disparities still persist in education and employment. The bill comes on the heels of West Virginia University’s controversial decision to eliminate several DEI positions last year.

If passed by the House, the bill will head to Governor Patrick Morrisey’s desk, where it’s expected to be signed into law. Still, advocates across the state are vowing to continue the fight.

“This conversation is far from over,” said Harris. “Because inclusion shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Contributor: Randy Johnson, Mineral Wells

3 Letters from Parkersburg Residents

We asked 1 republican, 1 democrat and 1 independent their thoughts on the “Trump Tariffs”.

Leave a comment and tell who you agree with.

The Republican….

The Independent

The Democrat….

How to Stick to the Agenda at a Public Forum

Now that those who rule the roost on Parkersburg City Council managed to essentially silence their constituents, a little bird told me to check the April 8th agenda. And while its contents didn’t exactly ruffle my feathers, and it wasn’t a cardinal sin, I wonder what birdbrain is setting the priorities here. Are they just winging it?

While we have non-profit agencies running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to help the homeless of our community, our elected officials are setting boundaries for a bird sanctuary. Now I’m all for helping our fine feathered friends, but we need to prioritize. We have big birds, little birds, black birds, white birds, dirty birds, free birds, songbirds and yes, a few dodo birds that we need to help first.

We have people in our community who need some assistance to spread their wings and soar. Our unhoused population is not an albatross, but rather an opportunity to expand our flock as it were. So council, draw your lines for the birds if you must, but don’t duck your responsibility to the people.

This is an example of how you can stick to the agenda and still make your point. Just remember, this is a City Council chamber, so be sure to show respect by avoiding woodpeckers and birds that flip. I also want to thank Wendy Tuck, Zak Huffman, Chris Rexroad and Cathy Daily for leading the flock. You guys are good eggs.

Contributor: Sonya Ashby, Parkersburg

Parkersburg Residents Split Over Trump’s First 75 Days

Parkersburg Locals Split on Trump’s Early Presidency

Talking to residents around Parkersburg, it’s clear opinions on President Donald Trump’s first 75 days in office are all over the map. Some folks are openly worried – one unaffiliated voter gave Trump a mixed review, saying there’s “no justification for [him] bullying Canada” even as she holds out hope that the currently “scary” economic situation will stabilize if there’s a plan behind it.

Not all the feedback was critical. A self-identified Democrat actually rated Trump an “A” so far, praising him for “getting rid of some of the scum” through tougher immigration enforcement and saying she’s willing to give his agenda time to work. Likewise, another resident voiced “100% support” for Trump’s stance on legal immigration and insisted any early economic turbulence is temporary, believing Trump’s tariff tactics will ultimately bring jobs back to the U.S.

From coffee shops to kitchen tables, people here express everything from cautious optimism to blunt skepticism. But everyone agrees on one thing: they’re watching closely to see what the new administration does next.

Contributor: Ryan Wilson, Wood County