Council debate over library board nominations highlights ambiguity in local code 2‑4‑3

Mayor Brad Pike told the council during his Jan. 28 report that he would submit two new nominees — Joanne McCumber and Nikki Hyer — for the Eagle Public Library Board of Trustees at the next council meeting after earlier nominees were not confirmed.

That announcement prompted a lengthy exchange among council members, the mayor and City Attorney Victor (last name not provided) over Eagle City Code 2‑4‑3, which reads in part that if the council refuses to confirm a nomination the mayor “shall then within 10 days thereafter nominate another person… If the mayor fails to make another nomination for the same position within 10 days after the rejection… the city council shall appoint a suitable person.”

Councilmember Kindlesberger (name as given in the meeting) asked whether the 10‑day period is calendar days or business days and whether the mayor’s statement satisfied the code’s requirement. City Attorney Victor said he reviewed the charter and city code and, considering open meetings law and the way other code sections use “days,” “business days” and “calendar days,” he advised the mayor that the safer interpretation was 10 business days. Victor said the city ordinance language appeared modeled on state statute language concerning appointed officers but that the city code’s wording differs by applying to boards, commissions and committees rather than to appointed officers.

Councilmembers pressed the mayor and legal counsel for clarity about how nominations should be communicated and whether the mayor’s informal announcement met the statutory or code requirement. Mayor Pike said he had followed the city’s long‑standing practice for nominations, that he had conferred with legal counsel, and that he intended to proceed; he expressed frustration when council commentary suggested impropriety, saying he had followed the letter of Eagle City Code.

Councilmember Kindlesberger said the language tracked state statute and that “10 days is 10 days,” urging adherence to procedures. Legal counsel and the mayor suggested the council consider an ordinance amendment or clearer local rule to avoid future ambiguity. The council did not take a vote on an appointment at the Jan. 28 meeting; the mayor said he would place the two nominations on the next agenda. Several councilmembers requested a clearer, written interpretation and said staff should bring proposed code or process clarifications for future action.

No formal action or appointment occurred during the meeting; the discussion closed with a commitment by legal staff and mayoral staff to clarify the procedure and consider code updates.