Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to advance 'resign-to-run' ordinance after procedural dispute
Summary
A motion to adopt an ordinance requiring resignation to run for other elected office failed for lack of a mover after debate over whether the provision should be an ordinance or a charter amendment and whether the town attorney’s absence justified pausing the item.
Council debated a proposal to add an ordinance titled "resign-to-run" to the agenda and later considered advancing the ordinance into legislation. The item originated from prior direction and a May 4 clean draft that some members expected to see on the May 12 agenda.
Councilman Gregory Sampson said he wanted clarity about why the item disappeared from the published agenda after an earlier email indicated the ordinance was legally sufficient. Town Manager Chuck Stevens explained he had circulated the draft to give council time to read it; after a council member raised a legal question staff consulted the town attorney, who — being out of the country — asked for more time to determine whether the appropriate mechanism would be an ordinance or a charter amendment. Stevens paused the item to avoid a procedurally flawed adoption.
Council considered a motion to adopt Ordinance 26-03 but no council member moved it; the presiding officer called the motion for a vote and it failed for lack of a motion. Council members expressed frustration about public notice and expectations created by the May 4 email, while others defended pausing to avoid process errors. The item was not advanced further that night.
