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