Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacancy Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe committee to draft changes to alder-vacancy ordinance after members press for faster replacements
Summary
Committee members urged amending Monroe's 2019 vacancy ordinance so candidates already on the ballot could fill alder vacancies without repeating the 50-signature nomination process; staff and the attorney said any change would be too late for the upcoming election, and the committee agreed to draft a resolution for future consideration.
The Monroe Judiciary and Ordinance Review Committee on Feb. 23 discussed changing the city's 2019 ordinance for filling alder vacancies to allow candidates who already appeared on the ballot to be placed into a vacancy without resubmitting 50 new nomination signatures.
Chair, who opened the discussion, said candidates who were already on the ballot and had collected signatures had effectively been chosen by voters and should not have to repeat the signature process to fill a vacancy created by an alder's election to mayor. "I think if I remember, I think it was, like, June before I was able to get in there from the city council vote," the Chair said, describing prior delay in seating replacements.
Britney, a city staff member, outlined the current rules: the ordinance adopted in 2019 requires publishing notice of a vacancy, setting an application deadline and requiring nomination packets with 50 signatures; applicants are then considered at an open council vote. "It is also an open vote. It's not a closed vote," Britney said, explaining that council members publicly state their votes when choosing a replacement.
Several committee members expressed support for streamlining the process for named ballot candidates while excluding write-ins. An attorney advising the committee cautioned that an ordinance change could not be rushed into effect in time for the imminent election and warned of a timing gap between a committee vote and the ordinance becoming effective. "I don't think it's a good idea myself to try to force it in before this election," the attorney said, urging more research.
Members discussed objective limits for allowing write-ins to be elevated, proposing thresholds such as a percentage of votes or a fixed minimum (for example, 10% or 100 votes) to prevent a candidate with only a handful of write-in votes from automatically taking office.
The committee agreed to ask staff to draft a resolution to amend the ordinance for future elections; no ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. A motion to adjourn was made, seconded and approved by voice vote, and the committee adjourned.
