To the editor:
Karla Bell ran for re-election last November, won her seat, and then resigned in February.
Once again, the council was faced with filling a vacancy, and once again, “good ole boys politics” won out, even though there were two good, viable candidates who ran for the seats, one of whom only lost by 39 votes. They were not even asked if they would be interested in filling the vacancy.
Citizens for Responsible City Management did propose a charter change that would require that when filling a vacancy on the council, the seat would go to the next highest vote-getter if the election had been held within a specified time. The Charter Commission did not go for this, and they are not wrong. It is broad, and may leave room for problems. If Mickey Mouse ran, (just an example), got 25 votes and was the last man standing, then the seat would go to him, and that probably would not be a good thing for the council or the community, although I’m not sure how much damage Mickey could do in the few short months he would be serving.
So, I will suggest a couple of different compromises. Perhaps the seat could go to the next highest vote-getter if the election had been held within the last six months, and that person received at least 75 percent of the amount of votes that the winner(s) received. For example, David Martin received 1,288 votes and won the seat. Doug Morrell received 1,249 votes … pretty close, wouldn’t you say? It’s 97 percent of the amount of votes received by Mr. Martin. Or, another compromise would be that the seat would have to go to the next highest vote-getter unless the council unanimously voted that he/she would not be a good choice. Then, the council would have to agree unanimously on the new appointee.
Now I know that personalities have played a big part in the actions of the majority of the council. But the council really needs to look at the complete picture here, and that is what’s best for the community as a whole, not whether everyone can get along without conflict. Some of the candidates who have been passed over for appointment in the past few years have a good understanding of the charter, Robert’s Rules of Order, and the budgeting process among other things, and I feel (and I’m not alone by a long shot) that this council has done a grave disservice to the community by passing them over.
It’s been said that because this is a representative form of government, we should trust our representatives to do what’s best for the community. It’s not about trust. I do not believe anyone on the council is untrustworthy, but, I have to ask: are they getting the whole picture? Or, is this all about confusion.
Joan Theriault
Caribou
