At a City of Eustace commission workshop, the city attorney reviewed the municipal charter and commissioners debated whether to add a specific timeline for appointing an interim commissioner when a seat becomes vacant.

The city attorney, Lehi, told commissioners the charter ‘‘cannot be changed by ordinance’’ and that ‘‘any amendment to it can be proposed through an ordinance, but it will have to be voted on by the residents.’’ She explained the charter currently requires the commission to appoint a replacement but does not specify a timeframe for doing so.

Commissioners discussed the practical effect of that silence. One commissioner said, “I think there should be a timeline,” and several members raised 30-, 60- and 90-day options as well as the concern that appointing someone shortly before an election could appear to give that person an incumbency advantage. Lehi noted the charter change made in 2016 removed a prior 30‑day appointment requirement and the prior special‑election rule for vacancies longer than six months, leaving broader discretion to the commission.

Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives: (1) amend the charter by referendum to add a specific deadline; (2) keep a broad charter provision and adopt more detailed appointment procedures or timelines in the city code (which would not require voter approval); or (3) add a narrow charter exception that automatically appoints the election winner to serve temporarily if the winner has already been determined. Lehi cautioned that any change to the charter language would require a public referendum.

City Manager Tom and commissioners also discussed operational matters if an appointment were made, including background checks, publication requirements for soliciting applicants and whether an appointed interim should be eligible to run in the next election. Commissioners noted past practice of excluding appointees from short‑term advantage by using selection criteria but agreed those restrictions would need legal review and, in some cases, voter approval.

Direction to staff: commissioners asked staff and legal counsel to prepare draft proposals and comparisons with other cities’ approaches, including timeline options (30, 60, 90 days), a proposal for how appointments would be handled when an election is imminent, and suggested ordinance language to govern interim appointment procedures.

No formal motion or vote took place during the workshop; the discussion was advisory and staff were directed to return with options for commission consideration.