Laserfiche WebLink
City Attorney Langel stated that it is not clear. He explained that he would interpret the sentence <br /> as stating that the Council could call an advisory election at any time and therefore that question <br /> could be added to a general election ballot. He stated that his preference would be to clarify the <br /> language to remove "special" from advisory election to provide clarification if that element is <br /> going to be kept. He continued to review Chapter 4, moving onto section 4.5 regarding <br /> vacancies. He stated that section could be removed entirely and fall back on State law, which <br /> would be his preference. He explained that if the additional language is not benefiting the City <br /> as a whole, it should not be there, particularly if State law already addresses the process, as it <br /> simply creates a logistical mess. He noted that the timelines identified in the Charter conflict <br /> with State law, and therefore the City has to default to State law anyway. He recommended <br /> removing the section entirely, or at minimum streamlining the section. <br /> Chairperson Field asked how defaulting to the State law would affect a vacant seat compared to <br /> the current Charter language. <br /> City Attorney Langel replied that the timing of when the special election could be held, the <br /> notice for the filing period, how those timing periods disagree with State law, and the added <br /> primary requirement. <br /> City Clerk Thieling noted that the conflicting issues created the timeline the City is currently <br /> following to fill a vacancy, which has extended out to eight months. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich stated that in his opinion the section that is causing a problem is <br /> specifically section 4.5.4. He noted that statutory cities can appoint someone to a vacancy when <br /> there is two years or less remaining in the term, while the Charter spells out that an appointment <br /> can be made only is there are 365 days or less remaining in the term. He explained that statutory <br /> cities can appointment someone, following a series of interviews with the City Council, which <br /> eliminates the need for a majority of the special elections. <br /> Chairperson Field asked for input on the possibility of removing this section, which would <br /> default to State law. He explained that this would allow the City Council to appoint someone to <br /> a vacancy if there is two years or less remaining in a term, while the Charter specifies that the <br /> appointment can only be made if there are less than 365 days remaining in the term. <br /> Commissioner Anderson stated that the dates required, and the current process has caused the <br /> Council to have a vacancy for multiple years. She stated that in her opinion there is a need to fill <br /> that vacancy quickly and therefore she would favor modifying the situation regarding vacancies <br /> to give the Council permission to fill a vacancy. <br /> Commissioner Fuhreck stated that eliminating the need for a primary during a special election <br /> would assist in streamlining the process but he would want the provision to stand that allows. <br /> appointments only with 365 days or less remaining in a term. <br /> Commissioner Bendtsen stated that he would be in favor of removing any section that is direct <br /> conflict with the State law. He stated that he would also support eliminating primary elections <br /> and would support appointments being made only with 365 days or less remaining in a term. He <br /> Charter Commission/February 13,2019 <br /> Page 5 of 11 <br />