That elusive seventh seat

That elusive seventh seat-attachment0

Appointing the fourth-highest vote getter may be a thing of the past, as Asheville City Council prepares to discuss a new method of selecting replacements to fill vacant Council seats.

The prospect of filling a vacated seat on City Council is one that has been visited twice since 2000 and seems likely to come up after this November’s election. Council members Holly Jones and Carl Mumpower are both seeking other offices in this election cycle, and successful campaigns on either part would necessitate the selection of a new Council member to fill out the remainder of their terms.

Council’s recent tradition has been to appoint, by Council vote, the fourth-highest vote getter in the most recent Council election to fill the vacant seat. (Three Council members are elected every two years for staggered four-year terms.) That was the case with Bryan Freeborn, who was appointed in 2005 to finish Terry Bellamy‘s term when she advanced to the mayor’s seat. But there has never been an actual policy in place, and a few Council members have expressed misgivings about the fourth-place method.

A new proposal, put forth by the Boards and Commissions subcommittee chaired by Vice Mayor Jan Davis, would treat the appointment like any commission appointment — with Council advertising for applications, conducting interviews and finally making a selection. Council is set to discuss that possibility at its Oct. 14 meeting.

Davis first introduced the proposal under new business at the end of an Aug. 19 work session, and Council quickly agreed that it wanted to hear more. Davis says the swift consensus on an issue with such political ramifications came as a surprise.

“I was amazed it didn’t get more discussion,” he told Xpress.

Davis voted against Freeborn’s appointment in 2005, saying fourth place in an election does not constitute a mandate, and he says allowing elected representatives to conduct interviews prior to a decision would be more fitting.

Freeborn lost a re-election bid in 2007, but again came in fourth. In an Aug. 21 post on the blog Scrutiny Hooligans, he said he was not planning another bid for public office, but would accept another appointment only because he would not need the orientation that a fresh appointee would require to serve only one year.

Council member Brownie Newman said the new procedure is more like what he would like to see as well, and noted the appointment would rely on other factors besides a sit-down with Council members.

“This is an inherently political decision for our body to make,” Newman said. “There’s going to be a lot of conversation in the community [about potential appointees] above and beyond this process.”

Newman, meanwhile, says he plans to explore whether the pick can be made before a departing Council member leaves his or her seat for a new office. That would mean seven votes to consider rather than six, and could sway the political direction of the final decision. The current proposal says the departing Council member would not have a say in the appointment.

“There are two people running for offices right now, and one of them has a pretty darn good chance of winning,” Newman said. “So we’re pretty much beyond this being a hypothetical.”

Under the proposed timeline, advertisements for a replacement would go out on Nov. 5, immediately after the notice of resignation from a departing Council member. Interviews would take place on Dec. 9, followed by a vote to appoint a new member during a formal session that same evening.

Brian Postelle, staff writer

SHARE

4 thoughts on “That elusive seventh seat

  1. Matt Mittan

    How about this for an idea…

    If someone can not fufill their “contract” with the voters, due to seeking higher office, then they – or their party – should have to pay for a special election to fill their vacated seat.

    I mean, since they basically had a contract with the voters to complete what ever term they ran for but didn’t, because of their own political ambitions, should they or their party not have to pay for the process of filling their vacated seat?

    If Council is going to abandon the established precident in Asheville, which I suspect is ONLY because of who came in 4th (how sad an excuse is that?) it seems reasonable and fair to me that the PEOPLE should decide who represents them for the next two years, not politicians looking to bolster their own majority on council.

    Let the PEOPLE take applications and do the interviews (through a special election), not those already in power. And let those who are so politically ambitious, that they can’t even finish their current term at a lower office, pay for that special election themselves.

    Why should the voters surrender thier voice or pay for the consequences of a politicians desires?

  2. City Council Vacancy
    Tim Peck | Et in Arcadia Ego | November 9, 2008
    http://timpeck.blogspot.com/2008/11/city-council-vacancy.html

    The 2008 Buncombe County Board of Commissioners election will leave open one seat on city council by virtue of a sitting council member having won a county board seat.

    This vacated council seat will be filled according to state statute. Statute allows council to summarily appoint a member of their choosing from all of the public or submit a pool of candidates for the appointment to an administrative review process of their own design. They have chosen the latter and promise to give their full consideration to any and all comers…

  3. Matt Mittan

    By your sterile response am I to assume that you will be applying for said position Tim?

  4. Matt: I was hoping my response would be fecund.

    I won’t be applying for the position, no. Though council would no doubt benefit from my “contribution,” I’m not entirely convinced that they should.

    Has anyone heard from Bill Russell on this vacancy question?

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.