It was a pretty interesting discussion tonight about the appointment/special election options. Some of my fears were realized. When discussing the appointment process Council Member Johnson did not want the appointment to happen the first meeting in January. Why you ask. He will be on vacation. Then the discussion moved to what appointment process would be established. This opened up into maybe interviewing possible candidates for the position. I stated that the only appointment that should be considered would be the third place finisher. This then turned into a discussion by some that well the election was so close maybe picking him is not the fairest and the Council should pick the "best" candidate. This is one of the reasons why opening it up to a purely appointment process is so dangerous. Once Pandora's Box is opened you can not close it. The main reason for making an appointment is ensure we have enough Council members at meetings to conduct City business. If the Council decides to wait to make an appointment through some ridiculous interview process it will be over a month to make the decision. In that case lets pass a special election and primary ordinance and choose that way.
Council Member Johnson then said well special elections usually have low turn out. This is correct but if he worried about a small portion of the population making the choice then he should be more concerned about 4 Council members making that choice.
Council Member Elect Duff's wife, also current EDA Chair, was at the meeting tonight and echoed her husband's concern about the cost of an election. Staff estimated the cost on the high end to be $700.
I wanted to try and find a solution that would be the best benefit to the City and make an initial appointment until the Council could agree on a primary and special election ordinance. This however seems difficult at best. The introduction of appointing anyone but the third place finisher gets us back to "the good ole days "when friends were appointed to open seats. I will not tolerate such a process.
The Council has made 7 appointments in the last few years to fill open seats. This process must end. We must ensure fairness and transparency in our City Offices.
About Me
- George
- I have served the City of Isanti as Mayor since 2007. We have accomplished great things together and I look forward to building on our success. United, we move forward to a better future. You may contact me at 763-442-8749 or e-mail me at george@georgewimmer.com.
11 comments:
$700? Give me a break. The City has already saved thousands of dollors this winter on sand and salt and even overtime. $700 is a drop in the bucket right now. They still would be money ahead. There's only a couple of weeks left of this year and then a new budget starts. There should be some surplus money left since they are saving on sand and salt and overtime. This is info that a council member can confirm. Do they also realize that they would be saving money by not having to pay for a full term for this third seat. Thats extra money too. There needs to be an election. Theres no other logical way.
Hold strong to those views George! It makes no sense to appoint anyone else besides a third place finisher, when the public has already spoken regarding the candidate they would want in office.
Either appoint Jeff to the council, since he is the best candidate, or let's vote him in, it makes no difference in the end. Jeff and the city will win.
Dan,
Your insight into the budget process has led me to believe that it was good that you were not elected.
The budget should not be one big pool of money to be manipulated to "make the numbers work".
In regards to the logical way to proceed, how about heeding the city attorney's opinion on the matter.
And besides, if we use your budgeting logic, an appointment would free up about $700 for mosquito control. ;-)
Jeff Kolb had a small percentage of the votes, very small. there are more people that didn't vote for him. We need to take that into consideration no matter how good of a guy he may be. This country has strong history that goes back many many years of voteing, not appointments. This is one of our rights as Americans. We need not to forget this.
my logic would not have purchased a road grader with your tax dollors when the city owns about a 1/4 mile of dirt road. I live here too. Why would I want my tax's higher. Believe me, you don't see what goes on unless you read the budget print out. You would be suprised if you did. It's public info.. Stop and pick one up and read it. But the problem is they can change it from time to time with funds transfering from one thing to the next. The budget get's munipulated all the time and I'm not on the council. This is called a 3-2 vote. This is what I wanted to stop. Every body has their opinion but it all comes down to every one lives here together. If we can't ever compromise or find some comon ground and we just keep fighting and bickering it will not be a very nice place to live for any of us. All I wanted to do is to look out for the hard working family that pays tax's and watch the spending on the high end and increase services.
I just wanted to point out that the comment "Hold strong to those views George! It makes no sense to appoint anyone else besides a third place finisher, when the public has already spoken regarding the candidate they would want in office." made above was made by Jeff Duncan. When I came back to read the blog it appeared that it could have been Jeff Kolb, and I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't. Thanks.
Dan, do you mean small percentage as in the same small percentage that Council Member Larson received? Here are the election results that are posted on this blog.
Alan Duff----------478-- 22.36%
Sue Larson--------347 -- 16.23%
Jeff Kolb----------334 -- 15.62%
Jim Kennedy------311 -- 14.55%
Steve Rask-------253 -- 11.83%
Dan Collison------253 -- 11.83%
Sean Stevens-----162 -- 7.58%
I added the percentage of the vote to try and understand what your point it. The winning candidates in the election only received 22 and 16%?!
seems common sense to me,First off the only people that should be considered for the position are those who went through the campaign and election process. Second,if three seat where available, then the top three candidates would have won. Granted there where only 2 open in November, but the mayoral race/victory created a third that was basically inevitable. The way I see it, Thrid place candidate was voted in.
lets do the election get it over with and let the people decide
Jeff, i realize everyone had small percentages. In the future, a primary would help with this. Thats for sure!
And to Mr. Anonymous, you bring up a good point with the "what if there were three seats open, the top three would be voted in". This is a real mess. Not everybody looks at it the same way. Some people want to vote, and some want to appoint, and some don't even care. No matter what the end result may be, I'm just glad to see so many people speaking their voice and getting involved. This shows how strong are community is. We just need to pull it togther and put our faith into the Mayor and Council whom ever that may be at any time. A big thanks to Mr. Wimmer for this blog for a few people to have a chance to talk it out and get an idea of the different views and ideas.
Post a Comment