In the wake of Councilwoman Keith's move to Texas, the Rye City Council is moving to fill the city council vacancy, American Idol style. The seventh agenda for the city council meeting this Wednesday is "Presentation of candidates for the open seat on the Rye City Council to be appointed on June 13, 2012."
No word if there will be singing.
MyRye.com attempted to solicit the names of the crooners, err… candidates from Rye Mayor Doug French, who resisted "Many people have reached out to me with an interest, but I have left it up to them to announce publicly because just as many have backed out since this process started. Let's see who raises their hand, but it should come from them."
Who do you think will run? Leave a comment below.
The Council has yet to make the case for the necessity of filling Suzanna’s seat in advance of the November election. And yet, we’re seeing a lot of hoopla encouraging people to publicly apply. Why is this distraction necessary from the Council’s work on the infrastructure bond, flooding, etc?
And if an additional Council member is needed to vote on the 2013 budget, have the November winner take the seat immediately after the election instead of waiting until January.
Having the Council pick someone to join the Council now, in advance of the election, seems frankly undemocratic.
It’s very democratic. By electing the Council, they become a proxy for your vote and interests. That is how American democracy works.
It’s very democratic. By electing the Council, they become a proxy for your vote and interests. That is how American democracy works.
It’s very democratic. By electing the Council, they become a proxy for your vote and interests. That is how American democracy works.
It’s very democratic. By electing the Council, they become a proxy for your vote and interests. That is how American democracy works.
One would assume tedc would be running considering all the complaining he’s been doing. Just the fact that he would have implemented a solution to Jim’s problem in 18 months is evidence enough of his superior ability.
One would assume tedc would be running considering all the complaining he’s been doing. Just the fact that he would have implemented a solution to Jim’s problem in 18 months is evidence enough of his superior ability.
One would assume tedc would be running considering all the complaining he’s been doing. Just the fact that he would have implemented a solution to Jim’s problem in 18 months is evidence enough of his superior ability.
One would assume tedc would be running considering all the complaining he’s been doing. Just the fact that he would have implemented a solution to Jim’s problem in 18 months is evidence enough of his superior ability.
Sorry, but people who have been elected choosing additional people to join their ranks without voter input is far from democratic. But you know, given that @BOH won’t use a real name, perhaps they’re interested in being appointed to the council as opposed to elected by the voters.
Bob Zahm (sorry about my name not coming through directly; something funky has changed with this web site)
BOH I’m kind of surprised. Bob Zahm schooled you. You made it too easy when you started with “By electing the Council…” then proceeded to contradict yourself.
By your logic Rye’s founders could have elected the council once, and that council would then appoint their successors in perpetuity — as a proxy for our votes and interests. No elections necessary.
Bob has it right. Leave the seat open and let Rye vote for its next council member in the fall. The 2012 election season is in full swing. Appointing someone, thereby giving them a head start on November, is not democratic.
Charmian,
I could see how my logic could be confusing so let me explain. When you elect the Council there are rules to how long you’re electing them for and there are also rules as to what happens if one of them resigns. The same happened when our U.S. Presidents were killed or resigned. There are rules already in place as to who replaces him. There are no national elections held to decide who replaces them. If there are no rules in the City Charter as to what happens when a Councilperson or Mayor resigns you might have an argument but, I think there is a section in the Charter that covers this sort of thing. That is American Democracy, the full electorate doesn’t need to be involved with every decision our elected officials make because it would be impractical to implement. Even if there were no clause in the charter covering this,as I said, the Council was elected democratically and should be a proxy for your interests and still would have the right to pick someone to serve until the next election. Kristen Gillibrand was picked by the Governor to serve out Hillary Clinton’s term. It happens all the time and if can happen at the US Senate level I’m sure it’ll be just fine at the Rye City Council level.
@BOH – While there are clear rules of succession at the Federal and State level and this includes the appointment of replacement representatives (look at Illinois for a recent, “successful” example of the process), just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. And while the City Council “can”, no one, including the anon BOH, have bothered to say why it is needed. It’s not. So don’t do it. And get on with really governing.
Thank you BOH for your response. I don’t see the Presidency, the leader of the free world, or New York State’s US Senator as valid examples of why we need to replace a council member by appointment 5 months before an election.
Of course the world cannot wait to elect a president should ours resign or die in office. To a lesser extent, because our upper chamber of Congress, the Senate, already is disproportionate (in the tiny Maine for example has as many Senators as the Empire State)it would be foolish for our 19 million citizens to go without 50% of their representation in DC. None of these circumstances exist in little Rye. The charter does not compel the council to appoint a member so close to election day. They should not, in the interest of democracy, do so.
This would not be impractical to implement. We have an election already scheduled, don’t we?
Can someone post the part of the Charter that addresses this?
§ C4-5. Vacancies.
A. If a vacancy shall occur in the office of Mayor or Councilman, the Council shall, by a vote of a majority of the members of the Council remaining in office, appoint a person to fill such vacancy. The person appointed to fill such vacancy shall hold office by virtue of such appointment until the first day of January following the first general election after the happening of the vacancy. A vacancy occurring before September 20 of any year in any elective office of the city shall be filled at the general election held next thereafter, unless otherwise provided by law, or unless previously filled at a special election.
[Amended 3-18-1981 by L.L. No. 1-1981]
B. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of the term in an appointive office having a term, it shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term.
@Charmian
The examples I used were used to illustrate were rules are used that are already in place. The term “shall” means “must” and the City Charter says a replacement MUST be selected.
@BOH – you must not have a dictionary available to you and / or not heard the City’s legal counsel say that filling the seat is NOT required.
I understand that if Corp Counsel says that it is not required, then I would defer to him/her. But the definition of ‘shall’ says (and emphasis on #3):
shall /ʃæl; unstressed ʃəl/ Show Spelled[shal; unstressed shuhl] Show IPA
auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or ( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking.
1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.
4. (used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations): Shall we go?
@Average Citizen
Thank you. I looked it up at Merriam Webster Dictionary site before I posted the meaning. I think it’s disingenuous for Kristen Wilson to say the interpretation of the meaning of “shall” when the City Charter was written didn’t mean “MUST”. Of course it meant “MUST” back then. Now wonder this town can’t agree on anything.
Kristen Wilson has now declared all of the Ten Commandments optional. That fine with me. I always thought they were way too restrictive.
Bored of Ten Commandments – oops – Board of Health… are you thinking it’s like… hmmm …Yonkers?
Don’t worry – I always liked your rock ribbed persona. Your secret is safe with me.
Waiting for your endorsement, big guy. You as much as anyone know I can get things done among factions and between parties.
If the council needs a fresh perspective – rhetoric doesn’t cut it. That includes speaking to the *challenges* *going forward*. I hear that and I hear Charlie Brown’s teacher.
Tell the truth – you do too.
@Charmian
“Conviction is a luxury of those on the sidelines.”
I endorse anyone willing to volunteer their time to serve. It is ironic that the two individuals willing to sacrifice their time and sanity to serve are women while the men do all of the complaining are unwilling to serve and enjoy the luxury of the sidelines. I too agree that party means nothing in a small town. If it did, the tree ordinance would never pass. No modern day Republican would agree to such a socialist policy. Good luck with your candidacy.
Thank you BOH. By the way, I knew what you meant by the President and Senator Gillibrand. I was just having some fun. History geek fun, that is.
I look forward to your support when I advocate for non partisan municipal elections – my next project.