Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines state‑required tie‑breaking process for council midterm vacancy; method by lot and coin toss explained
Summary
Legal staff told the council a state code requirement forces municipalities to identify a 'by‑lot' elimination method for candidate selection when interviews and roll‑call nomination votes do not produce a majority; the proposed resolution spells out drawing names from a bowl to identify top finalists and a final coin toss if a majority cannot be reached.
City legal staff briefed the South Ogden City Council on July 14 about a state code requirement that the municipality adopt a fair and transparent method for resolving ties or unclear majorities in the council’s appointment process for a midterm vacancy.
Glenn (city legal/staff) outlined the timeline following a resignation: the application window, interviews and an initial roll‑call nomination vote of council members. If no candidate receives a majority, the code requires elimination "by lot" to determine the top finalists. Glenn said the proposed resolution formalizes that step: if a multi‑way tie prevents identification of the top two vote getters, the names of tied candidates would be put into a bowl and drawn to advance finalists.
If the top two finalists are re‑interviewed and a second roll‑call vote still produces no majority, Glenn said state code requires the final selection by coin toss. "We have to identify a method by lot," Glenn said. He emphasized staff is following statutory language and that the process aims to be efficient and transparent.
Staff described the practical steps for Tuesday’s interview schedule (randomized order of interviews by drawing names, four‑minute answers, roll‑call nomination votes) and the contingency steps if votes fall into the tie categories described in the resolution. Council discussion included a desire by some members for a checkpoint or alternative voting methods, but Glenn said state code prescribes by‑lot methods and does not permit ranked‑choice alternatives in this step.
The briefing framed the resolution as a required, code‑driven procedural adoption to be used only in the event the council’s initial votes do not produce a majority selection.
