Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacancies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sweet Home committee votes to offer council vacancies to top vote‑getters in early term
Summary
The Sweet Home Charter Review Committee voted 3‑2 to recommend that, if a city council seat becomes vacant within the first half of the term, the seat be offered first to the highest unsuccessful vote‑getter(s) from the election before the council appoints a replacement.
The Sweet Home Charter Review Committee voted 3‑2 to recommend that, if a city council seat becomes vacant within the first half of a term, the vacancy be offered first to the top one or two unsuccessful vote‑getters from the most recent election before the council moves to make an appointment.
The motion, which passed after debate on June 17, would require the mayor to offer the seat to the top runner‑ups (the motion as approved limited the list to the top two), and if those candidates decline, the council would appoint a replacement at its discretion. The committee recorded three yes votes and two no votes in the roll call: Mike Reynolds (No); Jeff Parker (Yes); Josh Thorstad (Yes); Gary Jarvis (Yes); Angie Young (No). The committee chair said the recommendation will be forwarded to the full city council for consideration.
Committee members argued the change would respect voters’ choices by giving unsuccessful candidates an opportunity to serve before the council selects an appointee. Supporters said it would increase public confidence that vacancies respect election results; opponents raised legal and practical questions and urged staff research before finalizing ballot language.
City attorney Blair Larson confirmed the proposal would still be an appointment by the council if the offered candidates decline and indicated he could research legal details and return with recommended language at the next meeting. The committee noted that any member who voted in favor could later move to reconsider if staff research revealed legal problems before the charter draft is finalized.
The committee also voted separately to split the charter’s vacancy language into two subsections — one for elected offices and one for appointed positions — to avoid ambiguity about appointment and qualification timelines. In related housekeeping, the committee approved removing a sentence that had required an appointed officer to ‘qualify for office’ within 24 hours; members said the 24‑hour requirement was impractical.
The committee framed its recommendation as a change to the draft charter language; it does not itself amend the charter. The full Sweet Home City Council will decide whether to accept, modify or place the committee’s recommendation on the ballot.
