Laserfiche WebLink
remove primaries for special elections, and clean up the language regarding advisory elections — <br />with an option to remove advisory elections all together and another option to state that advisory <br />elections can only occur with general elections. Regarding Section 4.5.4, an option should be <br />brought back to remove that section which would default to State law and another option cleaning <br />up the language and allowing appointment for terms of only less than 365 days. <br />Administrative Services Director Lasher stated that one Councilmember stated that they would be <br />hesitant to appoint someone to the Council. <br />Chairperson Field asked if this could go back before the Council for consideration again. <br />City Attorney Langel stated that it would be difficult for voters to digest this information given the <br />technicalities. He also agreed that it would not make much sense to send this back to the Council, <br />as there was not unanimous support and was a vote of 5-2. He stated that there may be a benefit <br />in holding joint discussions related to primaries and the length of appointments that could occur <br />under certain circumstances as those were the two main issues of why the vote failed. He noted <br />that the vast majority of the changes were to clean up the language to comply with State law. <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that this issue continues to happen, as one Councilmember is <br />moving, and the Council is down another member that will need to be replaced through a special <br />election. <br />City Attorney Langel provided additional clarification on the intended language. <br />Commissioner Fuhreck suggested that the language be sent back to the Council absent the primary <br />and appointment language in order to accomplish the other changes and setup a meeting with the <br />Council to discuss the other two elements. <br />Commissioner Leistico stated that she read the reaction of the Council to the proposed language <br />and was frustrated that some members of the Council were caught off guard and did not provide <br />feedback. She believed that it would be helpful to have a joint meeting in order to come to a <br />consensus. <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that he has been involved in the City since the 1970's. He noted that <br />changes have been made to this chapter several times during that time. He noted that the main <br />objection of the Council seemed to be that they would be appointing someone rather than that <br />person being elected. He stated that prior to 2000, the Council appointed at least five to seven <br />members to the Council without an election. He noted that those appointed members served until <br />the next election and were then required to run. He believed that the changes should be made to <br />ensure that the language complies with State law and also supported removing the primary <br />requirement. <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she believed the Commission submitted well thought <br />out language that complied with State law and therefore she voted in favor of the changes. She <br />noted that the majority of the Council respected the work the Commission did to bring this <br />language up to Code and eliminate the elements that cause an additional financial burden on the <br />Charter Commission/ August 27, 2020 <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />