The Crookston Charter Commission met on Monday night with a focus on the city charter’s language regarding vacancies in elected positions. However, at the end of the night, the only action from the commission was to request that language be drafted to clarify that Section 11.03 Official Bonds as a City of Crookston expense.
City Attorney Corky Reynolds explained to the commission that the current statute has two means to fill a vacancy, an appointment by the council with five affirmative votes or a special election. He added that there are two additional remedies to the current situation without going to a special, one where only four of the six current council members voted to approve Chris Plante to Ward 6, would be that someone changes their vote, or an alternate person be selected.
Commission member Blake Carlson said he doesn’t believe in creating rules for all situations or in changing the rules for a unique situation such as the one the City of Crookston is currently in with two open elected positions that both have more than half their terms remaining. “I’m against making rules to cover every minute thing that can happen,” said Carlson. “What you end up with before long is a charter book that is so big nobody understands all the clauses that are in it. I think we don’t want to overreact to the situation we’re in right now. I think the charter that is there will work. Hopefully, we’ll get some people to step up and be willing to be a council member. I’d rather address it that way than back off on the rules and making it easier to vote rather than harder. It’s important to have a vast majority in instances like this in my opinion.”
Carlson said he’d rather see the city go the route of a special election than make sweeping changes that increase the council’s influence on who serves the community. “I think that for an open seat on the council I feel if anything I’d go along with something that said if the remaining term was a year or less the council could appoint,” said Carlson. “But if it was more than that to consider requiring a special election because if you have a council that is able to appoint one, and this case two open positions on the council, it gives a lot of influence to the existing council. I think that influence should rest with the voters and not so heavily with the council.”
Chris Fee agreed with Carlson saying it worked for the school board and also asked if the city could limit special election expenses, estimated at $20,000-30,000, by declaring a combined polling place for special elections. City of Crookston Finance Director Angel Weasner, who oversees city elections, said she was unsure if a resolution declaring a combined polling place was an option available to a city. Frank Lindgren suggested that if the council couldn’t agree on the recommended candidate, they appoint someone else. Acting Mayor Dale Stainbrook said the council will likely discuss another attempt at making an appointment next week. “I feel the charter gives marching orders for the council,” said Stainbrook. “I think there was a good point made about if the candidate ain’t going to get in, find candidates again and interview again. I brought up having seven or nine community members that pick a candidate and the council takes their recommendation. I don’t know how the council feels. I guess it will be a discussion for next week.”
Weasner explained that elections are only allowed on certain days throughout the year and one of the election days for 2020 is Super Tuesday on March 3, and the only election allowed that day is the presidential primary. That would mean the earliest a special election could be held in 2020 would be in May or less than six months before a regular election, which Fee pointed out would possibly be the cheaper option for electing those two positions. There was some discussion about whether the city’s charter, in fact, allows for a special election. The charter says in Sec 4.02, “the council may by resolution order a special election and provide all means for holding it,” which Reynolds used for his opinion that a special election is a possibility as written in the charter. However, Councilman Tom Vedbraaten and other members of the council who attended the meeting questioned that opinion saying that former City Attorney Chuck Fitzgerald had the opinion the city could not hold a special election.
While the opinions of the current and former city attorney’s opinions differ on a special election Stainbrook said all he can do is share his opinion, but the decision is up to the council. “I guess it’s up to the council,” said Stainbrook. “I’m sitting in my chair and can give my opinion that you already heard and it’s up to the council to see what route they want to go. All I can do is say what I think would be fair and right. We had three good candidates and if they are interested in applying again, they are more than welcome or maybe they’re going I tried it, I’m done. Who knows, but we need to do something.”
Dan Johanneck also asked how everyone felt about the number of council members for Crookston and whether the census would redraw ward lines. Jake Fee shared with the committee he thought eight was a good number because one of the mayor’s powers is to break a tie, which an odd number wouldn’t allow. Weasner also said it was possible that wards may need to be redrawn once the census numbers come out, which is expected in 2021 or 2022. Councilman Bobby Baird asked whether there was an issue with Section 3.07 which requires a vote of at least seven council members for an emergency ordinance. Baird and Councilmen Jake Fee both expressed concern that could be an emergency situation requiring a declaration and the city not have seven council members to vote on it. Neither Reynolds nor Weasner was able to identify a situation where that would be an issue however as Weasner said the city declares emergencies by resolution, not ordinance. The commission did not take action on that section.
Nick Nicholas brought up a concern about the language being unclear for Section 11.03 Official Bonds which he suggested be clarified to state that the bonds as costs paid by the employer or city, not the employee. The commission asked that new language for that section be drawn up for review by the commission and council. Once that’s done there will be a special meeting for the Charter Commission explained Stainbrook. “Basically it was the official bonding, we’re just changing some language so it’s under the employer’s expense,” said Stainbrook. “I’m not sure how it reads, but it’s just changing a couple of words. I don’t think it will be a major issue. We’ll have a special charter (meeting) and have a vote on it. I don’t think it’ll be a big deal.”
