OK, let’s look at the article that is in the Shawnee Dispatch at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/jan/27/council-member-rejects-call-resign/
In a nutshell, a resident of Ward 1 called for Ms Scott to resign so that the position could be put on the upcoming election ballot. The resident (Carri Donohoe Person and her attorney Ginger Brady) were basing this on the fact that they felt that Ms Scott was going to relocate out of the ward. She felt rather than having the council appoint a replacement it should be up to the voters to choose.
OK, now we go to Charter Ordinance 40. If a council member resigns, the city council has 60 days to appoint a replacement or it goes to a special election (that’s expensive). On the other hand, if a council person knows they are moving in the foreseeable future they could resign, even making it effective for a future date. With that in mind, the position could have been put on the general election ballot, no special election needed, and the citizens of Ward 1 would make the decision, not the city council.
In the news article the following appears:
For her part, Scott said “any financial transactions I have pending or not pending is not the business of governing body.” She said if and when she changes her address, she will change voter registration and resign
Brady asked if Scott intended to move to Arizona, and Scott said that decision was “pending.”
“Until then, this seat is occupied,” Scott said. “I intend to do my duties as a Council member for as long as I’m a resident of the city.”
Brady said Scott had not been forthcoming on the matter, and the Council should have had an open discussion as soon as she considered moving so the position could be elected by voters rather than filled by a vote of the Council. She charged that the city was aware of Scott’s intentions ahead of time.
Now, we will keep it simple. Apparently Ms Scott purchased a residence in Arizona in November of 2009. As a matter of fact, some of the documents required her signature to be notarized and that action was handled by Shawnee’s City Clerk, Stephen Powell. So, one could say that a decision to purchase a new residence and eventually relocate was made at least in November 2009. (Probably earlier, since one does not normally wake up one day and run out to buy a house in another state). Since Mr. Powell performed the notary services I think one can safely say that someone of status in the city was aware of a pending relocation.
This is when she could have resigned, with a future effective date. The city manager could then have notified the county election office that by the time of the general election the seat would be open. That means that the citizens of Ward 1 could then have selected her replacement.
Now let’s take another scenario. We know that there are some disagreements among some of the council members. The way it breaks down, if just one of the incumbents running for reelection loses that could change the make-up of the council. Then if Ms Scott resigns shortly after the general election the remaining council members could and would make the appointment of a replacement. Naturally they would do this because they wouldn’t want to go with the costs of a special election.
This is almost like someone is attempting to stack the council. Is that possible? Did anyone influence Ms. Scott to hold off on resigning?
As reported by the Dispatch, Ms Brady stated to the council that Ms. Scott had sold her home here on December 28. It may not have closed yet. Will she have to obtain a new residence in Ward 1?
What is going on here is probably not illegal. But, is it ethical? It appears to be an end around play to create a council that will bend in the wind to certain influences. If the council is going to bend, at least let the voters make that decision.
Sidebar: Tuesday night I went on line to read Charter Ordinance 40. It wasn’t there. An email to the city manager that night was sent and when I checked Thursday morning it was. Along with the notations next to #39 and others that covered these situations that they had been repealed. Why wasn’t #40 on line? It has been effective for quite some time now. Anybody researching the situation would have had old info. Never did get an email back thanking me for finding this error. :-) :-)
Have a comment about this post? Post your comment at http://shawneeray.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=blog&thread=37
