Martin's Additions election committee presses for independent election management, objects to council edits

Marty Langland, chair of the Martin's Additions Election Committee, and committee members spent much of their Jan. 6 meeting disputing council edits to proposed election regulations and insisting that operational control remain with the independent election committee.

Langland opened public comment and told the group the committee wants voters to have “accurate, timely election information” and encouraged residents to comment before the council’s Jan. 16 hearing. The meeting featured repeated concerns that inserting the village manager or council into election project management would create an undue advantage for incumbents.

Why it matters: Committee members said year-to-year edits by the council have created instability and, in some cases, left the committee unable to post notices or documents in a timely way. The committee argued that core management decisions (for example, whether to conduct a candidate forum) are substantive tasks the charter assigns to the election committee and should not be treated as council or staff administrative discretion.

During the meeting Lynn, a resident/commenter, argued that “the function of the committee is to manage and operate the elections” and that council input in operational matters “doesn't seem right.” Naomi, a committee member, warned that placing the village manager—who reports to council members—in charge of operational aspects “is a pure conflict of interest.” Chair Marty Langland framed the issue as a structural safeguard: “The principle of independent elections is really bedrock.”

Council liaison Arthur read the charter's text aloud during the discussion, stating: “All elections shall be managed by the election committee. The committee shall operate according to rules and procedures adopted by the council.” Arthur argued that the charter allows the council to adopt procedures and that flexibility in the regulations is intended to accommodate varying circumstances.

Committee members responded that flexibility should not be a cover for shifting substantive control. Elizabeth Goldberg, who drafted the minutes and has served on prior committees, noted a distinction between contract administration (paperwork and vendor payments, which staff can handle) and project management (timing, forums, vendor instructions), which she said belongs to the election committee.

Votes at a glance: The committee took several procedural votes at the meeting. It unanimously approved the prior meeting minutes; it voted unanimously to post monthly election committee reports on the committee web page; and it unanimously authorized the start of the 2025 voter-roll verification process by obtaining (a) last year’s certified voter roll, (b) the office list of residents, and (c) the county voter roll for Martin's Additions addresses. The committee also asked Larry to draft alternative contract language to clarify contractor liability and contingency handling and set meeting dates for Feb. 3 and March 3.

Contract and vendor notes: The committee reviewed the 2024 contract with Eclectec Election Services, noting language that requires the vendor to comply with the election regulations. Members flagged unclear liability language (the contract references an "undetected malfunction" and Larry recommended alternative wording to cover human/operator error). Elizabeth asked for clarification whether a stated $9,757 charge for a runoff is an additional fee or included in the base price; the chair said the committee would follow up with village staff for clarity.

Next steps: The committee will present its concerns and recommended redline of the proposed regulations at the Jan. 16 council meeting during the public hearing. Chair Langland also volunteered to contact county election staff (identified in the meeting as Boris) to check how county rolls were affected by recent data updates and to request the documents needed for the voter-roll verification work.

The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.