Commission seeks clearer vacancy and forfeiture rules; asks staff to draft due-process hearing procedures

The commission examined sections 4.06'4.09 on vacancies, forfeiture and removal. Commissioners agreed the charter should more clearly define when an office becomes vacant (death, resignation, failure to maintain qualifications, prolonged absence) and how temporary gaps should be treated in extraordinary circumstances such as hurricane displacement or COVID-era remote participation.

Members raised concerns about broad forfeiture language and the risk of removing an elected official by a small majority without adequate notice or evidentiary safeguards. One commissioner urged adding a detailed hearing process: written charges, notice by certified mail, opportunity for evidence, witness testimony and public hearing before any council declaration of forfeiture. Staff noted ordinance 98-5 exists to clarify excused absences and that the town's charter already provides for notice and a hearing: "a council member charged... shall be notified by the town clerk by certified mail and shall be entitled to a public hearing at the next regular scheduled meeting," the charter reads.

The commission asked counsel and staff to present drafted procedural language that aligns with case law and best practices for hearings (evidence, witness list, limited continuances) at the next meeting, and to clarify whether vacancy triggers differ from forfeiture processes. They also agreed to clarify the clerk's role in receiving excused-absence requests and to capture the existing ordinance references in the charter review notes.