Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council divided over expanding candidate pool for vacancy; moves to proceed with current five candidates
Summary
Councilmember Bridal asked to add three previously ranked candidates back into the interview pool for a civic vacancy after dropouts; councilmembers debated fairness, rule changes and the 90‑day appointment deadline and ultimately signaled they would proceed with the five remaining candidates.
A procedural dispute over how to fill a vacant council seat dominated new business during the March 3 work session, with Councilmember Josh Bridal proposing the council add the next three ranked applicants to restore a full eight‑candidate interview pool after several people withdrew.
Bridal said elevating the next three names from the original ranked list would “create a system where none of us as a council know who these next three candidates are going to be” and argued the idea was meant to ensure a consistent, merit‑based process. He said the modification would be simple because the candidates had already been pre‑screened and ranked in the earlier application round.
Several colleagues countered that the council should not change the appointment rules midstream. Councilmember Parshall said adding new candidates after some applicants had already been interviewed and scored would give later‑arriving candidates an informational advantage and that the council’s resolution calls for interviewing the top eight scorers. Councilmember Hurst and others noted the statutory 90‑day appointment window and cautioned that repeated reopens could jeopardize a timely appointment; staff confirmed the 90‑day deadline is April 5.
Councilmember Escamilla, who supported adding candidates, said the interviews had been publicly available and argued a renewed, expanded pool would be fair to earlier applicants who withdrew. Debate included concerns about potential serial meetings and procedural fairness. After extended discussion, several members signaled a preference to proceed with the current five remaining candidates and to follow the existing timeline rather than reopen the pool; no formal ordinance or rule change was adopted during the March 3 session.
The council did not take a formal vote on altering the process at the March 3 meeting. Councilmembers discussed next steps for interviews and scoring and emphasized the need to move within the statutory appointment timeline.
