Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Issaquah council tightens vacancy process: seconds required for nominations, one‑vote rounds approved
Summary
The council amended its rules of procedure to require seconds for nominations, give council leadership authority to set presentation timing, and adopt a one‑vote‑per‑member rule in final appointment rounds; the resolution passed unanimously.
Get email alerts on the Council Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Issaquah City Council amended its rules of procedure on May 19 to clarify and tighten the process for filling council vacancies, adding requirements for nomination seconds, greater advance review of application materials, and a revised final‑voting method that limits each council member to one vote per round.
City Clerk Tisha Geiger presented the proposed changes following council direction from an April 7 debrief about the most recent appointment process. The amendments are intended to improve fairness and predictability by prompting the council to approve schedule details (application questions, presentation guidance and any public meet‑and‑greet events) when the vacancy timeline is set; to delegate presentation time decisions to council leadership when applications are received close to a hearing date; and to require that nominations be seconded before they move forward.
Members also discussed methods for narrowing nominees during the final appointment stage. After debate, the council adopted an amendment (proposed on the dais and drafted by the clerk) specifying that in the final appointment rounds each council member may cast one vote for a single nominee per round and should avoid voting on earlier nominees in order to reserve their vote for a preferred candidate. The rules retain a provision that nominees may withdraw from consideration; that withdrawal step will be used in cases where candidates advise they do not wish to remain on successive ballots.
Councilmember DeMichelle moved the clerk’s wording amendment on the voting process; the council subsequently approved the full resolution (No. 2025‑12) amending Section 2.03 of the City Council Rules of Procedure. The resolution passed unanimously.
Why it matters: the changes formalize several practices intended to make the appointment process clearer for applicants and the public and reduce procedural surprises during the final selection steps.
What the rules now require and allow: • When council adopts a vacancy timeline, council will also be prompted to approve or delegate the application questions, presentation guidance and any meet‑and‑greet events. • Nominations require a second before they are formally recorded. Council may narrow nominees either by voting on individual nominations or on slate(s); anyone receiving a majority advances to the next step. • In the final appointment round each council member may cast one vote per round for their preferred nominee; nominees may withdraw between rounds. If council wishes to pursue more complex voting methods (for example ranked choice), staff indicated that could be explored later.
The clerk said an administrative standard operating procedure accompanies the rules change to capture implementation details for staff and to ensure consistent communications with applicants.

