Written by Councilwoman Marcie Palmer sent me this message to post for you:
Hi Folks-
In great discussion with Randy, & Jay, & Julia, Julia has created a new webpage regarding the Council Opening:
Click Here!
Thanks to the City Information Services people that helped get this up & running in record time (less than 3 hours I think)
Marcie Palmer
I think there’s one error in the page… it says they will be appointed to fill the remainder of the term, but the Council policy (4.2.1) says they shall serve on council until such time a person is elected and certified to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term at the next regular municipal election.
This means they are appointed for the rest of the year, run next November to be elected to fill the rest of the term, and run the following year for a full, 4-year term.
This is a good point, and perhaps one of the first issues council needs to take up on January 7.
The policy generally has been interpreted to mean that the next time there is a council election, which occurs every two years, an appointed member would run for the office. But, we could chose to require that they run in the next November election, a year earlier. This one will have great turn-out since it is the presidential election.
It would also cost the city a little more money, although that is probably a minor consideration. I expect to discuss this on January 7. What are your thoughts?
The thing is that I’m not so sure how much of a say Council has in this — there’s a good chance that there’s an RCW out there covering how appointments are handled. I know that the vacacncy that occurred a couple of years ago in Seattle was handled in the way I describe — they had around 100 people apply for the opening, appointed someone to fill the vacancy, and then she was up for re-election two years in a row.
Even though it may cost the city a bit more money, I think the reason why the policy is written the way it is, is to ensure checks and balances exist. In a way, it would put Council in a little bit easier a position… if the candidate who is chosen for Council ends up flopping, they could be out in as little as a year.
Personally, I would prefer seeing Council stick with the policy as written… it will almost instantly put the burden on the successful candidate to prove they are the best for the job, and will allow the citizens to confirm Council’s choice. However, I’m not an elected representative, so I’ll have to trust those who are elected to set policy.