Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates appointment statute and meeting process after heated prior session; city attorney offers guidance
Summary
Council members criticized the handling of a recent appointment, saying they felt rushed and unclear about the 'unfit' vs. 'unqualified' statutory language; the city attorney read the statute, cited an attorney general opinion, and offered to supply written guidance and alternatives (tabling, resolution) to avoid future confusion.
Council members spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing how the council handled a recent appointment and whether statutory language requiring a finding that an appointee is 'unfit' or 'unqualified' had been presented fairly. Several members said the previous meeting felt rushed and that the use of the word 'unfit' had created an unnecessarily charged tone.
“I felt that I was unheard… I felt that I was trying to be made… that I was complaining,” one council member said, describing a desire for clearer process and more time when making sensitive appointment decisions. The city attorney responded that she had read the relevant statute and described options for the council, including tabling the appointment, voting on a resolution if the council wished to find someone unfit or unqualified, or taking no action (in which case the appointment may be deemed approved after a statutory period). The attorney said she would provide the statute in writing and is available to help the council draft processes or ordinances to avoid future confusion.
There was no formal change to process at the meeting; the attorney offered to print the statute for council members, and council members asked for clearer procedures and more time to consider appointments going forward.
