Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Appointment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays confirmation of elections director pending applicant records
Summary
The Everett City council committee deferred a mayoral appointment of an elections director after members sought resumes or redacted applicant records and clarification whether council approval is required; administration agreed to return with legal guidance.
The Everett City Council Committee on Legislative Affairs and Elections voted to keep a mayoral appointment for the city’s elections director in committee while the administration provides additional documentation and legal guidance.
Council President Van Campan introduced an order requesting confirmation of the appointment of Melanne Peloton as director/registrar of elections for a term ending Jan. 5, 2026. Committee members questioned the hiring process and whether council had received resumes for all applicants after a referral to committee. A clerk reported that no copies of other candidates’ resumes had been provided to the committee.
Erin Deveny, the mayor’s chief of staff, told the committee that the practice of submitting appointments to the council has varied historically and that the administration would follow the council’s preference going forward. Terry Ronco, the city’s director of human resources, said the position was posted internally and externally, that the city received four resumes, and that three candidates were interviewed (two internal, one external). Ronco added that the mayor is the hiring authority and that HR and the chief of staff participated in interviews.
Councilors asked whether redacted resumes showing candidates’ relevant experience could be made available. Deveny said the city solicitor had consulted outside counsel and been advised that applicants’ materials may be exempt from public‑records disclosure because applicants did not expect their applications to be submitted to the council; she said the administration would follow up on whether redacted versions could be provided.
Councilor Veil moved to postpone formal consideration until the committee received confirmation about the interviewed candidates’ resumes (or redacted versions) and other clarifying documentation. Councilor Smith asked administration to confirm whether the position is a department head under the Charter or Administrative Code, which would affect the need for council approval. Deveny said the administration would return with answers on redaction/public‑record status and on whether council approval is required under current rules.
The committee voted to keep the appointment in committee pending those responses. The action leaves the nomination unresolved; the administration agreed to report back with legal guidance and, if feasible, redacted applicant information.
