09-12-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilmember Trude's particular situation was described as an example. She was filling the remainder of a term that occurred with a council vacancy. She was elected to serve one and one-half years. If she completes one full term in addition to the partial term she would be prohibited from filing for a second full term because the language states "no person may file . . . for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than eight total years." After only five and one-half years in office this amendment would prevent filing because her total would be nine and one-half years. Under the proposed language all persons who fill vacancies would have a limit of less than eight years. Someone could be appointed to serve less than one year, even as little as one day of a term and then they would only be allowed to file for one full term because filing for a second full term would bring them just one day or a few months over the eight year limit. A person in the later case would be limited to four years and some months of service under this amendment. • Several commissioners thought this was unfair; they were concerned that fewer people would now run in elections for partial terms. Other commissioners considered this type of turnover of politicians to be beneficial to the city; more people could serve; there would be new people all the time. The commission agreed that the amendment did not address this case very well but the language had to be read literally so in fact some persons would not even be able to file for a second full term because of the limitation on filing. Motion by Richard Oman to strike subdivision 3 of the proposed amendment. The maker and seconder accepted the motion as a friendly amendment. After further discussion the maker and seconder agreed to reword subdivision 3 as follows in order to avoid retroactivity: "Subdivision 3. Service before January 1, 1995 shall not count in determining total length of service." • -5-