Legislature debates process for appointing interim county executive, moves proposal to committee and schedules meeting

The Jackson County Legislature spent substantial time Monday debating a resolution that would set procedures, timelines and eligibility rules for appointing an interim county executive following a recall vote.

Legislator Donna Payton introduced Resolution 22,072, which would establish an application and interview process, require applicants to sign an affidavit pledging not to run in the November general election, and set public hearing dates. The resolution drew extensive questions from colleagues about legal authority, fairness to applicants and how the public would submit questions and comments.

County legal counsel Brian Kavinsky told the body that he would review the proposal and was available to advise on implementation and legal limits. Legislators raised concerns about using a resolution (nonbinding) to alter powers that are set out in the county charter and asked whether a charter change would be needed for binding change.

Several members sought softer language and procedural limits: Legislator Megan Smith proposed changing a sentence reading “have conducted public listening sessions” to “will conduct public listening sessions,” limiting the number of questions legislators could ask each applicant to two, and changing an affidavit from “required” to “requested.” Payton said the affidavit language reflected input from public listening sessions and an open letter from civil-rights organizations and declined to soften the wording; she said the public had advocated for a required pledge.

The Legislature voted to “hold” the resolution for further work and to send it to legislature-as-a-whole/rules for additional review; the hold vote passed 9–0. Legislators agreed to schedule another meeting to continue work: the body set a special meeting on Thursday, Oct. 9 at 10 a.m. to focus on the process and related rules.

Sponsors said the goal is to create a transparent, participatory process and to move quickly so the county can conduct interviews and make appointments within the 30-day window the charter contemplates for filling vacancies. Opponents cautioned that changes to appointment authority should not be enacted via nonbinding resolution and urged more time for public input and legal review.

No appointment or final rule changes were enacted at Monday’s meeting; the proposal will be revised and returned for future action.