The Los Banos City Council on Jan. 2 directed city staff to use a modified ranking system to winnow 13 applicants and to interview candidates for two vacant council seats on Jan. 8 at 6 p.m.

Council members settled on a version of “Alternative 3” that will use weighted points in round one and advance the top three applicants into round two (the council altered subparagraph b to require three applicants advance for both the smaller and larger applicant pools). The council also set interview timing and public-process rules: each candidate will have up to a three-minute introduction and two minutes to answer each of up to six council questions (maximum 15 minutes total per applicant), ballots will be public, and selections will require at least two affirmative votes by the three-member council.

Why it matters: The council must fill the District 2 and District 3 vacancies by appointment; the method the council uses affects who advances and how quickly the seats are filled. Council members debated speed and fairness between a simple “pick one” approach and a ranked, point-based system for pools of different sizes.

City Attorney Bridal Vaughn reviewed three alternatives compiled by staff and said there is no single legally required method; he recommended the council decide on a process and use additional rounds of voting rather than resorting to random methods if votes tie. Councilmember Ken Lambert argued for a quicker Alternative 1 approach, saying, “I like alternative 1,” while Councilmember Lucy Lewis said she preferred Alternative 3, noting it “ranks down everybody no matter what the…pool” and favored modifying it so it would work equitably for both the four- and seven-applicant pools.

Council members gave staff direction to prepare the modified Alternative 3 so it functions for both the smaller and larger applicant pools (change: advance three applicants to round two), and to publish interview details online. Council staff indicated the ballots cast during the appointment rounds will be public record and that, after selections are announced, the council will confirm each selection by resolution and swear in the appointees at the end of the meeting.

The council also discussed tie-breaking procedures. Members said they prefer to continue debate and repeat votes until an applicant receives the required affirmative votes instead of using a random lot method; Bridal Vaughn advised that continuing rounds of public votes and discussion is an appropriate approach.

The council noted logistics for the Jan. 8 meeting: candidates will be sworn in after both seats are filled; staff will finalize the wording of the modified Alternative 3 and the question/time limits ahead of the interviews; and the city clerk and attorney will post the procedural details online.

At the same meeting the council recessed to closed session on labor negotiations under Government Code section 54957.6 and reported afterward that it gave advice to staff and took no reportable action.

Votes at a glance
- Approval of meeting agenda as submitted: motion carried (unanimous voice vote).
- Approval of consent agenda (warrants numbered 249-056 through 249-355 in the amount of $2,301,280.60 and minutes of Dec. 18, 2024): motion to approve made by Councilmember Lucy Lewis, second not specified; vote in favor announced by voice.
- Adjournment to next meeting (Jan. 8 at 6 p.m.): motion carried (unanimous voice vote).

What’s next: Staff will post the revised interview procedure and the candidate list online; interviews are scheduled for Jan. 8 at 6 p.m. in the council chambers, with selections to be confirmed by resolution and appointees sworn in at the end of that meeting.