Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clerk proposes changes to Lynnwood council vacancy process; council debates roll-call voting and transparency
Summary
City Clerk Luke Galanie presented amendments to the council vacancy appointment resolution, including a clerk-managed lottery to select up to eight interviewees, advance submission and attorney review of council interview questions, removal of a background-check requirement, and a weighted three-round points process to narrow finalists; council members debated roll-call public voting versus paper ballots for preliminary rounds.
City Clerk Luke Galanie and Assistant City Administrator Julie Moore returned to the Lynnwood City Council on May 15 with a revised resolution that updates the process for filling a council vacancy.
Moore said the application is posted on the city website, social media and to board liaisons, and that the application deadline is 5 p.m. on May 31. Galanie demonstrated the website location for the vacancy and said the clerk’s office will verify residency before applicants are invited to interview.
Galanie outlined the resolution’s changes: the clerk will run a lottery to determine the order of interviews and will limit interviews to a maximum of eight candidates; council members will submit one interview question and one alternate five business days before interviews and those questions will be reviewed by the city attorney for legality; the weighted preliminary vote will be conducted in three rounds (first/second/third choices) using a points system to narrow the field to three finalists (with a fourth added if there is a tie for third); the finalist with the least points will be eliminated and rounds repeated until a candidate receives at least four votes, after which the mayor will entertain a motion to affirm the appointment. The resolution also removes a background-check step Galanie said is unnecessary in light of post-2021 changes restoring some voting rights.
Council members raised a series of logistical and policy questions. They asked about timelines (packets provided before an executive session on June 3; interviews scheduled for June 17 and June 20 with interview questions distributed June 16), how ballots and preferences are to be recorded, and whether paper ballots or an open roll-call process best complies with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) while minimizing potential hostility toward appointees. Galanie said the amendment adds a roll-call element (council members state first/second/third choices aloud, with results tallied) to increase transparency and reduce the risk of a secret ballot; some council members argued that publicly revealing how each member voted could create friction for the eventual appointee; others said public roll call better aligns with OPMA.
No appointment was made at the work session; Galanie said the resolution will be brought to the next business meeting for action and that interviews and packet distribution are scheduled in June ahead of a targeted appointment on June 24.
