Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter committee adopts Section 5.8 giving council authority to judge member qualifications
Summary
The Sweet Home Charter Review Committee voted to adopt new Section 5.8, which gives the council authority to judge election qualifications and to conduct public hearings for members facing possible removal; the committee discussed due-process limits and risks tied to free-speech case law.
The Sweet Home Charter Review Committee voted to adopt a proposed Section 5.8 giving the council authority to “be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members,” including holding public hearings for councillors charged with conduct that could lead to removal.
The provision, presented as a new Section 5.8 and recommended by City Attorney Blair Larson, passed on a roll-call vote after committee members debated whether the charter should enumerate a detailed due-process procedure or leave specifics to council rules. The motion to adopt the language carried by voice and roll-call votes; the committee recorded “Motion carries.”
Committee members said the clause is meant to address residency or other qualification questions that sometimes arise after elections. Larson told the committee that charters typically grant authority to the council to decide such matters and require a public hearing and notice but that most charters “punt” the detailed procedures to council rules. He said, “I didn't really want to overstep and go into too much into that. It's not something that I found really in any other charter.”
Several members urged caution about giving the council broad removal powers without a high threshold or clear safeguards. One committee member said the threshold for removal should be set in the charter rather than entirely in rules the council could change, noting a risk of “rules adopted by council” being used to target an individual. Another member suggested including intermediate disciplinary steps — reprimand, public censure, then removal — so censure or lesser discipline could occur before removal.
Larson cautioned that courts have struck down overly prescriptive residency requirements and that residency disputes are often fact-specific and hard to adjudicate. He cited a recent Oregon federal district court case involving Corvallis, in which removal was challenged on First Amendment grounds, saying the case showed the risk of removing a councillor for speech-related conduct. He recommended ensuring any removal process affords notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The committee left the charter text broadly worded while adding a sentence requiring a public hearing with at least one week’s notice for any councillor charged with conduct constituting grounds for removal. The committee minutes show the group discussed whether to put fuller due-process rules in the charter or keep them in council rules; the adopted language keeps the specifics to council rules while establishing the council’s authority and a requirement for a public hearing.
The committee forwarded the approved Section 5.8 language for inclusion in the proposed charter packet sent to the full city council.
