Missoula council debates process to fill Ward 1 vacancy after official notice

Missoula City Council on Sept. 22 heard extended debate over how to fill a vacancy in Ward 1 after official notice of the vacancy was received Sept. 4, with councilors split on whether to appoint an interim representative immediately or wait for the Nov. 4 general election and the county elections office canvass.

The dispute centered on legal process and democratic norms. Council President Cheryl said the council "absolutely believe[s] that that is what the spirit of the law is, and we believe that that's the right thing to do democratically," arguing for filling the seat with whoever the public elects in November so the vacancy is filled by an outcome of the voters rather than an intra-council appointment.

Councilor Bob Campbell urged caution and cited state law, quoting Montana Code Annotated 13-37-127 during debate: "A candidate for elective office may not assume the powers and duties of that office until the candidate has received a certificate of election as provided by law." Campbell proposed an amendment requiring the county elections office canvass be completed and a certificate issued before the person determined by the Nov. 4 election would be seated to finish the current term.

Councilor Mike Nugent said the council should move quickly to seat the person who appears likely to win the election so Ward 1 is represented immediately, saying the council is "better off getting them in office ASAP." Other councilors described competing concerns: some emphasized following council rules and state statute; others emphasized restoring representation for Ward 1 residents without leaving the seat vacant through the remainder of the year.

Public commenters urged adherence to established rules. A Ward 1 resident who identified herself as Karen said she was "disappointed" with the decision-making process and urged the council to follow the rule that governs vacancies. Mary Giuliani, who spoke later, said several council members had acknowledged the situation and expressed appreciation to those who acknowledged the process problems; she also criticized some council rhetoric about the circumstances surrounding the vacancy.

No final council vote on the resolution or the amendment was recorded in the meeting transcript. Councilors debated an amendment offered by Councilor Campbell to the motion made by Councilor Gwen Jones; that amendment would have delayed an appointment until after the county elections office complete its official canvass and issuance of a certificate of election. The transcript records extensive discussion and public comment on the question but does not show a final roll-call or voice vote on either the original motion or the amendment during the Sept. 22 meeting.

The matter was discussed at length during the meeting's regular-business portion; councilors indicated the item had been the subject of prior committee discussion. Council members also referenced the upcoming code reform and the limited time remaining in the current term as factors informing their positions.

The council did not adopt a final binding action at the Sept. 22 meeting; the record shows the motion and amendment were on the floor and public comment and debate occurred but no formal outcome was entered into the minutes provided in the transcript.

Looking ahead, the council may consider the matter again before the statutory 30-day deadline for filling a vacancy or after the Nov. 4 election and county canvass, depending on the path the council selects.