Monroe Judiciary and Ordinance Review Committee Meeting - March 9, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Monroe Judiciary and Ordinance Review Committee Meeting - March 9, 2026
The Judiciary and Ordinance Review Committee met on Monday, March 9, 2026, at 6:07 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were Dylan McGuire, Tom Miller, Heidi Treuthardt, and Lynne Kleven. The committee discussed a potential ordinance change to streamline filling alderperson vacancies resulting from elections.
Consent Calendar
- The February 23, 2026 minutes were accepted as presented.
Discussion Items
- Administrator Rindy reviewed the current ordinance (adopted in 2019) for filling an alderperson vacancy, which requires posting the vacancy, collecting 50 signatures, submitting nomination papers by a council-set deadline, and an open council vote.
- Alder Miller proposed changing the process so that when a vacancy arises because an elected alderperson becomes mayor, the next highest vote-getter already on the ballot would automatically fill the seat, without needing to gather signatures again or wait for council approval.
- Committee members expressed general support for the idea, but agreed it could not apply to the current election because there is not enough time to amend and publish the ordinance before the April 2026 election. City Attorney Bartoff noted a "gray area" in timing, since the city council's last meeting before the election would be April 20 and the vacancy would not exist until April 21.
- The committee discussed write-in candidates: they would not get the same automatic appointment, because they did not go through the ballot/submission process. One member noted a past mayor who won as a write-in, and suggested a minimum vote threshold (e.g., 10% or 100 votes) for write-ins to be considered.
Key Outcomes
- The committee agreed to continue pursuing an ordinance amendment for future elections, with no immediate action to affect the current election. The item will be brought back to the next committee meeting with additional research and proposed language, including possible write-in vote thresholds.
- The committee adjourned at 6:18 PM on a motion by Kleven, seconded by Treuthardt, passed 4-0.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, 606, and we'll start the judiciary and ordinance review committee order. Clerk call the roll, please. Alder Miller. Here. Alder Cleveland? Here. Alder True Hart? Here. And Alder McGuire. Here. We are all here. Okay. Um correction minutes from February 23rd, 2026. None stand approved as presented. C business discussion regarding filling alder person vacancy ordinance. Well, this is you all got the copy of what the ordinance is right now. And if there's an opening for the umder, people have to it has to be posted and people have to get um signatures and turn in the nomination paperwork, and then it's gonna be a while in order to get it go to city council in order for them to vote on. Brittany, you want to clarify that a little bit better than me. Sure, yeah. So the current um ordinance for filling in older person vacancy um was adopted back in 2019. Um I think the council at that time was looking for kind of more of a process rather than just a mayoral appointment. Um, so the current process um is that so if we do have currently two alders that are running for mayor, and um their terms don't expire until next April. So if one of them were to be elected, there it wouldn't leave a vacancy for an older person. And so per our current ordinance, um, we would kind of publish and make notice of the the vac the vacancy um with the determination of the current council um setting a deadline of when applications would need to be submitted. Anybody that would want to fill that vacancy, even if they were on this current ballot, would have to go out and get another 50 signatures and submit those nomination papers, submit that to the city clerk by the established deadline, and then the council um at the determined meeting would vote um on anyone that has submitted those papers. Um it is also an open vote, it's not a closed vote. So if there were three people here, you would go through and and openly state who you vote for. Um, and we it would work through a process that way that we would get into if we have to. But that's kind of the current process. I know um, I think Alder Miller was kind of wondering if there'd be a way that instead of having to do that lengthy process, especially after people have just kind of already submitted their papers and interest with the election, be able to with discussions with attorney Bartoff, the timeline and process to we couldn't just do that by you guys making a decision and a motion. I think it could be done if we want to alter the actual ordinance, um, but we don't have time for that to happen before the election. So, not necessarily something that can impact this election, but allowing the opportunity to discuss if you think you would want to um revisit that process for future. My thoughts on our is that it's person's already got all the signatures and is on the ballot, and the city uh residents of Monroe have already voted for the person, and he didn't personally didn't get enough votes in order to meet the number of openings, but why should they have to go ahead and get uh signatures again, and then there'd be a uh even number of people on the city council until uh city council does approve that person, and I think if I remember right, I think it was like June before I was able to get in there from the city council vote, so I was just trying to eliminate this process. Uh not for write-in candidates, because they don't have the signatures, and it's just if they're already on the ballot, have signatures in, I would think that we could automatically just um have them move up to fill the vacancy. What are you guys' thoughts? I agree. I think it's the most concise way to do it. Yeah, maybe it makes sense to me. Yep, as long as it's just for that that ballot, that election. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. Okay, but in order to get that ordinance changed, we have to uh present it, put it in the paper and everything else, correct? So we can so it wouldn't that be in effect in time for this election, especially I think when I think by the bare minimum we could have you guys approve it on the April 20th meeting potentially. Um but I think even then you're already past the election, and then you'd also potentially have somebody voting on that ordinance that could be one of those potential next numbers, and so I just don't think um that to think that this could be an effect for this election is worthwhile, but we're also considering those three-year terms. Um and something else. Oh, the primary determination for election related ordinances that I think we if you guys want to include some language with that we could consider then presenting that with those additional ones for going forward. The and I think to clarify, I guess this would only be if there is a vacancy at the time or as a result of a current election. This other process would still have to remain in place if somebody resigned in August or something of that nature. Definitely, it's just if there's an opening due to election like it's happened before uh an existing alder gets elected mayor, and then we got an opening for alder, and we gotta wait till June order to fill that spot. So uh so other words, your uh attorney you got any question or ideas about it, what we can do or just go with process and for next election. Yeah, I mean, I I'm I consulted with Brittany when on this, and I think that it I mean we like you said we could technically do it, but then you are voting on the ordinance app and it's actually kind of kind of a gap and kind of a gray area that have to even do a little bit more research because technically the you would be you know, the the last meeting would be Monday, April 20th.
openpublica.com