Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Vacancies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Executive committee refers ordinance to require elector signatures for alder vacancy applicants
Summary
The Madison Common Council Executive Committee referred a proposed ordinance to require a set number of elector signatures for applicants to fill alder vacancies to the next full council meeting after members raised concerns about timing and accessibility for first-time applicants.
Get email alerts on the Elections Vacancies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Madison Common Council Executive Committee on Aug. 5 referred a proposed ordinance that would add section 2.035 to the Madison General Ordinances — requiring applicants for alder vacancies to submit elector signatures — to the next full council meeting for further work and possible amendment.
The measure, introduced during the committee meeting, would create a consistent, citywide requirement for filling alder vacancies. The presenter said the change was prompted by inconsistent practices across past vacancy processes and said the goal was predictability for applicants and staff.
Committee discussion focused on implementation details rather than the policy goal. Alder Tishler raised concerns that collecting the proposed number of signatures could exclude otherwise qualified applicants if deadlines were short or if signatures were invalidated for technical reasons. Attorney Haas noted the draft ordinance’s subsection 5 says, “applicant shall submit completed petitions to the clerk on or before the date established by CCC,” meaning the executive committee would set the submission schedule. Alder Lankella and others asked for a standard number of days for signature collection so applicants out of town or unfamiliar with the process would not be disadvantaged.
Alder Lankella moved to refer the ordinance to the next council meeting; Alder Kishler seconded. With no objections, the committee passed the motion to refer and the ordinance will return to a future meeting for additional discussion with the clerk’s office and possible amendment.
The committee’s action was procedural: referring the item for more work, not enacting the ordinance. The presenter reiterated the intent to create uniform procedures and said further changes could address concerns about deadlines and applicant support.
Votes at the committee were taken by voice; the motion to refer passed with no recorded objections.
The ordinance as discussed would be added as Madison General Ordinance section 2.035; the draft references a submission deadline to be set by the executive committee and a petition requirement in subsection 5, but the exact signature threshold and deadlines were not finalized and were described by participants as subject to clerk-office input.
The item will return to the executive committee and then the full council for further consideration and possible enactment.

