Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacancy Attendance Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs vacancy and attendance rules, special-election timing in charter edits
Summary
The Review Commission discussed revisions to vacancy-forfeiture rules (three consecutive absences), due process before removal, what counts as a "regular" meeting, and whether to shorten the required special-election window from 120 to 60 days.
The City of Anticharter Review Commission examined proposed changes to how vacancies are handled and how absences can lead to forfeiture of office during its May 21 meeting.
Staff outlined a proposed change to Section 3.05 to give the council discretion to remove a member for three consecutive absences only after notice and a hearing. "The idea here is to give the council more discretion, and to give the council member who was absent 3 consecutive times, a right to a hearing notice in a hearing at that subsequent council meeting before the council takes any action," a city staff member said.
Commissioners raised concerns about defining "excusable" absences and gaming of the rule through special meetings. One commissioner asked for clearer language on what counts as excusable absence: "I'd like to define what's excusable and what's not," and cited examples such as family emergencies versus nonexcused personal events. Staff suggested keeping the standard that absences without an explanation "acceptable to a majority of the remaining council members" could provide needed flexibility.
Members debated whether the forfeiture provision should count only "regular meetings" (the staff and several commissioners favored this to avoid gaming) or any called meeting. "I could foresee a situation where council members wanted to remove another council member could just schedule a few quick special meetings when they knew he was gonna be ... out of the country," a commissioner warned.
The commission also discussed the time required to fill a vacancy by special election. The charter currently requires a special election within 120 days; staff noted shortening that to 60 days could create logistical and cost problems and might prevent coordinating with the county to run the election. "If you had 120 days, there's a greater chance that you'd be able to contract with the county as we normally do," a staff member said. Commissioners suggested compromise language allowing the election to be held "within 120 days, but not later," while also noting the city could elect to hold an election sooner.
Ending: No amendments were adopted; staff were asked to draft language clarifying notice-and-hearing protections for members facing removal, to consider defining which meetings count toward forfeiture, and to retain flexibility on special-election timing with clear options for county-run versus city-run elections.
