Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacancies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines blanket change to let council always appoint replacements for vacancies
Summary
After extended debate, the council did not adopt the charter review committee’s recommendation to have all council vacancies filled by appointment (instead of by special election except in limited circumstances). Council members voiced concerns that appointments could leave many seats filled without a public vote and that the change would interact poorly with the proposed November election schedule.
Council considered a committee recommendation that any vacancy on the council — regardless of timing or number — be filled by appointment, with a special election called only if a quorum no longer existed. Staff presented comparators from other cities and explained that several cities use appointment rules while others require elections.
Opponents warned that a sweeping appointment rule could result in a council made primarily of appointees (particularly under the proposed move to November uniform elections when many seats might be on the ballot at once) and said that voters deserve the choice. Supporters of appointment argued appointments preserve continuity of government and avoid the delay and cost of special elections.
Council members proposed and debated several amendments (including a compromise to permit up to two appointments in a two‑year term), but the amendments failed and the primary motion to accept the committee’s recommendation did not pass. Council members who opposed the change cited the recent special elections and argued the public should have a direct say in filling seats.
Because the council did not accept the committee recommendation, no charter language will be advanced from this meeting to automatically replace elections with appointments; staff will record the direction and the matter will not be placed on the ballot unless the council later directs it.
