Council appointment delayed for election

During the Monday, July 23, regular meeting, the city council declined to appoint a member to the vacant Ward 3, Position 2, seat.

Council member Frank Anderson proposed putting off the appointment until after the election. Anderson said, during the meeting, he was concerned that appointing someone now could affect the upcoming election. After the election, he said, the council can appoint whoever wins the seat at the November regular meeting.

Mayor Peter Christie said that he believes this was the best way to proceed. He’s also spoken with leaders in other nearby cities, he said, who have made similar decisions in similar circumstances.

“It was the right move to make, let the voters decide,” he said.

Staff attorney Jason Kelley said that the state law governing what to do in the case of a vacancy could be read as having no specific time requirement in a case like this, where the term has less than one year remaining.

According to Arkansas Code 14-43-411(b), when a vacancy occurs in a city with a population greater than 20,000, “a new council member shall be chosen in the following manner: (1) If the unexpired portion of the term of council member exceeds one (1) year, at the first regular meeting after the occurrence of the vacancy, the city council shall proceed to either elect by a majority vote of the remaining members elected to the

council a council member to serve for the unexpired term or call for a special election to be held in accordance with § 7-11-101 to fill the vacancy; or (2) If the unexpired portion of the term of council member is one (1) year or less, a successor shall be chosen by a majority vote of the members of the council.”

Kelley wrote that, while he has interpreted this to mean appointment must occur at the first meeting after the vacancy was declared, one can read this such that Section 2 removes the specific timing requirement. He said he believes this decision could hold up in court.

“I will say that there probably is no real consequence for failing to appoint anyone Monday, and if anyone challenged the fact that the council did not take such action, it is unclear what their remedy would be,”

Kelley wrote.

Council member John Flynn said that he didn’t agree with the decision.

“State law says you have to appoint somebody,” he said. “Sometimes you have to do some things that are hard, and I thought the law is pretty clear.”

While there was concern over giving someone an advantage in the election, Flynn said that he wasn’t sure how much of an advantage that might be if any, and he isn’t happy with how the council proceeded.

In particular, he said, he wasn’t happy to see the council accept resumes and interview seven people, then decline to appoint one of them.

“You shouldn’t go halfway down the trail, so to speak, and then not do it,” he said.

Among those interviewed for the seat was

J.B. Portillo.

“I put myself in their place when they were going through the motions of deciding what to do,” she said. “Three people can’t possibly know who the best candidate of the seven is in a week.”

Portillo said she’d probably make the same choice because she thinks the populace should be choosing its representative. It hasn’t reduced her interest

in the seat, she said, and now she plans to run in the election.

Another interviewee, Stan Moore, said he was disappointed the council did not choose from the candidates it had.

“I understand that thought process,” he said. “But still I go back and say if that was a concern, why wouldn’t that be brought up before they talk to somebody?”

Moore said he doubted it was an issue with the candidates themselves because there seemed to be some qualified individuals.

“I don’t think anybody’s bitter or upset here, but it’s a little surprising,” he said.

At this point, Moore said he’s considering running for the seat as well.

Flynn said he appreciated seeing qualified candidates, even if a decision could not be reached right away.