The Marion County Commission voted Dec. 26 to hold vacant an at‑large seat on the county planning and zoning board and to stay actions taken at its Dec. 22 meeting while the county seeks a legal review.

The motion to pause the Dec. 22 actions was made by Commissioner (S9) and seconded by Commissioner (S10); the board voted 5–0 to keep the position vacant until counsel completes a review. Commissioners framed the stay as a way to avoid litigation while clarifying whether a recent reappointment complied with county resolutions and Robert's Rules of Order.

Public commenters had pressed the commission to act. “Three plus three plus three equals nine,” said Alyssa Weiser, an attendee, reading from Resolution 2019‑23’s term‑limit language and arguing that the recently reappointed planning and zoning member — identified in meetings as Mr. Belton — had served beyond the allowable terms and therefore was not eligible for immediate reappointment. Weiser urged the board to rescind the appointment, saying the decision “left Marion County wide open for litigation.”

Other residents raised related procedural concerns. Clinton Gore told commissioners that public comment had been unavailable at the recent Planning and Zoning meeting, limiting community review of revisions. Former commissioner Linda Peters said the board later removed a previously appointed at‑large member without cause and questioned motives for reversing the earlier decision. Diane Novak said minutes from a Jan. 23, 2023 meeting misstated remarks attributed to Brad Jantz and warned commissioners not to rely on inaccurate minutes.

Commissioners cited uncertain legal footing and procedural rules in their deliberations. One commissioner read from Robert's Rules and noted that certain votes — including rescinding a prior 5–0 appointment — may require prior notice or a higher threshold to be validly rescinded. The motion that led to the stay also directed staff to withhold filling the at‑large planning and zoning seat while counsel reviews whether the Dec. 22 actions complied with county resolution language and applicable procedure.

The board also approved a separate motion to solicit requests for proposals for county counsel, a step commissioners said would provide options for interim or permanent legal representation while the matter is reviewed.

Next steps: the stay leaves the at‑large planning and zoning seat unfilled until the county completes a written legal review; the commission directed staff to return with any recommended actions after that review.