Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District 3 Vacancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge special election as council defends appointment to vacant District 3 seat
Summary
Residents pressed the council to hold a special election to fill the vacant District 3 alderman seat, citing code alternatives and concerns about representation; council members said timing and past practice supported appointment and noted election costs.
Dozens of residents told the St. Francis Common Council on June 22 that the vacant District 3 alderman seat should be filled by a special election rather than an appointment.
Kendall Fulmer said the council’s May appointment denied voters a choice that could have been preserved by an interim appointment plus an election aligned with April 2027. “When a practical solution exists that addresses costs, representation, and voter participation, I have a hard time understanding why that option wouldn't be considered,” Fulmer said.
Several other speakers echoed that view. Christine Cornac urged the council to let voters pick a replacement rather than read about it in a newsletter, and Donna Mittstead said she did not feel Matt Damon had represented District 3 well before his resignation.
Council leaders responded that the timing of the resignation—announced during 'comments from alderman' at the May 5 meeting rather than on an agenda—meant the council could not have acted that night to place an election on the November ballot. Mayor Tutai said the council acted at the next available meeting and noted cost and practical considerations. Council members also pointed to prior municipal practice favoring appointments to short-term vacancies.
The public exchange included sharp remarks about local development and petitions: Marty Sahorski said residents had collected over 700 petitions supporting a development plan for the so-called 'triangle' property, while others asked for environmental review before building.
What happens next: there was no vote to change the appointment decision at the June 22 meeting. Residents who spoke suggested fundraising to cover election costs and urged the council to reconsider options that would let voters decide the District 3 representative.
Ending: The council did not reverse its appointment on June 22; members said options remain complex because of timing, costs and established practice.
