City Councilman, Mayoral Candidate Joe McComb, Brad Tindall are in the Box this morning just after 7.
Still scratching my head over this, in the Caller Times this morning we get to revisit whether former councilman Mark Scott is eligible to run for mayor. ANOTHER lawyer was hired and this time, they got the answer for which they were looking. (The first independent council that was hired reported last year that since we voted to change our city elections from May to November, the term limits outlined in the City Charter did not apply.)From the Caller Times:
"Previously, an independent attorney hired by the city determined that Scott's attempt to resign wouldn't affect him reaching his fourth term, which triggers term limits. But the attorney also found that since one of Scott’s terms was for about 18 months – caused by a change from May to November elections – it didn't count toward his term limits since the city charter specifies terms as being two years."
If you don't get the legal opinion you want, talk to another lawyer. He of course has a different opinion.From the Caller Times:"
City Council directed City Secretary Rebecca Huerta to administratively declare Scott ineligible if he files for candidacy as a councilman or mayor for six years, the length of time termed-out council members must wait before seeking office again.
The move follows continued controversy of Scott’s decision in September to resign from his position a few months short of reaching his term limits, announcing that his intent was to run for mayor in 2018. Critics have said Scott was attempting to circumvent the will of voters, who had voted in 2010 specifically for term limits.
Mayor Pro Tem Carolyn Vaughn, who has been a vocal critic of Scott’s maneuver, said in the meeting that she is seeking to respect the city’s charter.
“I want to go on record that I upheld my oath and I followed the law of the charter,” she said. “The citizens... I respect what they voted for. I intend to uphold it on my end.”
Others have said whether Scott succeeds should be left in the hands of voters.
Reached by phone after the council's vote, Scott said he couldn’t “comprehend how scared they must be of my candidacy.”
“I am appalled at the gall of six council members looking at 340,000 voters in the eye, and saying, ‘No, I know better than you,’” he said.The issue had already been resolved and he was found to be eligible, Scott said.
Previously, an independent attorney hired by the city determined that Scott's attempt to resign wouldn't affect him reaching his fourth term, which triggers term limits. But the attorney also found that since one of Scott’s terms was for about 18 months – caused by a change from May to November elections – it didn't count toward his term limits since the city charter specifies terms as being two years"
Just wow. or WOW!.....Too bad we didn't pay this much attention to Dan McCheese, I mean, gosh, where to begin?
We elect an "engineer", and "not just an engineer, an aerospace engineer" who turns out to be an angry fraud, .....and we are going to spend more time trying to disqualify Mark Scott, yea, I know, he's been on council for a long time,still, it reminds me of a "principles over personality" problem. Why not let voters decide?
I'm not comfortable with elected officials "lawyer shopping", to keep a qualified candidate from running for office. I think this is a dangerous road, worse than any in the city.
I've heard council members, when they are too timid to have an opinion say, "let the voters decide", for years. Years and years. Seems like the perfect time to try it again. Or are some suggesting we are too stupid to vote? No, we proved that back in November.