Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Quorum And Special Election topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quorum standoff could force special election after member refuses to attend
Summary
A meeting stopped after a participant said a colleague refused to attend, potentially forcing a special election that would cost the city money and require a judge to set the date, speakers said.
S1, a committee member, said the meeting could not proceed because an absent colleague had told the group's lawyer they would not attend if "Melissa" was the only candidate for mayor.
"This man right here is holding us hostage," S1 said, repeating that the refusal to show up could leave two seats open and trigger a special election. S1 said they had scheduled meetings for the 10th through the 13th to try to secure a quorum before an eight-day statutory window closed.
The dispute centers on whether a vacancy or an intentional absence would require organizers to seek a judicial order to hold a special election rather than waiting for the regular May ballot. S2 raised procedural timing questions about the Feb. 13 deadline to call a May election, and participants debated whether delaying would avoid extra cost.
Participants did not record any formal motion or vote during the session. S1 said staff would coordinate with the secretary and, if needed, a judge to set a special election quickly rather than risk violating open-meeting rules by advancing business without a quorum.
The matter remained unresolved at the end of the recorded exchange: attendees urged anyone who saw the absent member to tell them to appear so the group could vote rather than initiate a special election.
