Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, Apri121, 2008 <br />Page 16 <br />Councilmember Roe suggested, that it may be in the best interest of Roseville to <br />hire out their trained and certified best-value procurement method staff to other <br />communities and agencies. <br />Mayor Klausing thanked staff for their informative report. <br />b. Discussion on Council Vacancy <br />Mayor Klausing requested City Attorney Squires analysis of whether an ap- <br />pointed candidate could be designated to serve only through a special election or <br />until January 1St when an elected official would normally take office. <br />Mr. Squires advised that it was the interpretation of both him and City Attorney <br />Scott Anderson that the City Council could do so. However, he advised that there <br />was an Attorney General opinion that may take an opposite approach, in their re- <br />view in the context of accelerating a term to November rather than January, with <br />clarification that the constitution states January 1St, thus not allowable. Mr. <br />Squires opined that the interpretation seemed to be one of form over substance <br />and addressed a provisional appointment, with a person elected to complete a va- <br />cancy in term after their election. Mr. Squires advised that his office viewed the <br />situation differently, but it was his concern that if someone were to question the <br />validity of the action for someone not duly-appointed, and that it may be prudent <br />to seek an Attorney General opinion to further clarify the issue and to ensure that <br />the appointee and elected official was seated properly. <br />Further discussion included whether an agreement with the appointee clarifying <br />that they resign immediately following the election; appointment upfront to end at <br />the completion of the special election; whether it was necessary to clarify for can- <br />didates applying to fill the unexpired term of the appointment timeframe; how <br />quickly an Attorney General opinion could be received and if it would be pro- <br />vided prior to appointment; and noting the limited number of meetings impacted <br />between November and January. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that in an effort to keep the position public and in <br />fairness, if an Attorney General opinion was sought, that the decision needed to <br />be resolved as soon as possible, and that applications needed to be clear on the ac- <br />tual term of the appointment. <br />Mayor Klausing concurred that an Attorney General opinion be sought. <br />Councilmember Pust concurred that candidates for appointment needed to know <br />upfront if their appointment would be to a date certain in November or a date cer- <br />tain in January, and that two possibilities exist at this time. <br />