Monett government change election canceled by council

Insufficient candidates for charter commission prompts action, unanimous vote withdraws initiative, city to reassess plan
 
The Monett City Council voted to cancel the election to trigger a change in the city’s form of government during its work session on Jan. 22.
The reason stemmed from the process chosen by the council to advance moving away from the commission form of government, which has only three city council members. In calling an election, the council hoped a public vote would select 13 people who would write a new charter under which the city would operate.
However, the process dictated by the state constitution required every candidate for the job to circulate a petition, gathering enough names representing 10 percent of the people who voted in the last municipal election, the vote over the roundabout. Of the 25 packets handed to potential candidates, 14 turned in the needed petitions, but two withdrew. One was rejected by the Barry County clerk as having ineligible signatures.
That left 11 candidates, not enough to fill the positions. Because the law for changing governments has limited precedence, the options available looked unclear. Attorney Holly Dodge with Lauber Municipal Law, speaking by a Zoom call, said the city council may not have the authority to appoint persons to fill those vacancies. Even filing as write-in candidates offered challenges.
To get names on the ballot by the Jan. 27 deadline, a potential write-in candidate would have to gather the needed signatures and have them verified by the county clerk. Write-ins who had not completed the petition process would not be eligible to serve. The city council would have to approve a ballot with a set number of lines for write-in names. In theory, Dodge said, candidates could petition a judge to place their name on the ballot until
Feb. 10. The candidate would have to take action, not the city. If 13 were not elected, Dodge said the law was not clear that the city would have a valid commission, if it was challenged in court.
Several potential candidates who had completed the petition process attended the meeting. Deborah Schoen pushed the council to open the door for write-ins. Gerry Bounds cautioned against proceeding in “a quick and rushed way.”
Mike Randall, not a candidate and a frequent critic of the city’s government, urged moving forward. He argued many people felt unqualified to serve, that the work would conflict with their occupational duties, and take too much personal time. Randall added he thought the only gray area was whether someone would challenge the process in court. When he participated in the charter process in Carthage, Randall said weekly meetings were not required since the city had charter models from other communities. “It’s not like you’re starting from scratch to draft the Declaration of Independence,” he added.Dodge challenged this point. She said the process would be intense for the first six weeks. She also prompted two votes on the question. She remembered that city ordinances do not go into effect until 10 days after a vote. That would be after the deadline to withdraw the issue. However, if the issue was addressed as impacting the peace, health, and safety of the community, it could be seen as an emergency and thus would go into effect immediately.
Dodge recommended postponing the entire issue for a year. That would place a final vote on a drafted charter at the same time as the next election for city council in April 2027. Calling two off-cycle special elections – one to set the process to write a charter in motion and the second to vote the charter up or down – would be “very expensive,” though she had no exact cost to cite. She also noted that delaying would require all the candidates to gather names for their petitions all over again before the next election.
Before a vote to withdraw the ballot measure was taken, Commissioner Ken Gaspar offered an alternative. “I don’t disagree with pursuing a charter,” Gaspar said. “I thought the process has been fairly aggressive, and that we needed to get more information to the public. If you want to have a change of government, there’s a way to do it simply.”
Gaspar submitted what he called a White Paper, a written directive based on Chapters 77 and 78 of Missouri state statutes, which would allow the circulation of a petition to gather 25 percent of names from the last mayoral election, a total of 281, directing the city to switch to a council-manager form of government, doable without a public vote. This system is used by Joplin and Aurora, where the council, which could be expanded immediately to five people, sets policy, elects a mayor from its ranks, and the city manager takes the lead on city operations. A city-manager government would run on state statutes, not city ordinances.
With that done, Gaspar said, the city could take its time writing a charter that could be considered at a later date, adopting its own ordinances as needed. He also stressed, “The charter is not the form of government.”
Gaspar continued, “The [low] numbers [of charter commission candidates] say the people don’t know what a charter is. We rushed it. I think we’re still rushing it. We’re going into dangerous waters to open up to write-ins. It could be challenged. Then we’d be right back to where we are today.”
Mayor Randy Burke appeared to lean toward trying to use the write-in method as the discussion progressed.
A first vote was taken, where Burke voted against withdrawing the election. After Dodge explained the urgency issue, and said the council should add that to the motion or damage the city’s transparency by not putting the promised issue on the ballot, a second vote was taken. This time all three council members voted to withdraw the initiative.
With the issue resolved, Burke said, “Thank you for your service” to the charter commission candidates, as they departed the meeting.