JASON'S MAILBAG: Who's next in line for city commission seat?

Q: Now that Diedre Cole's been named to the city commission, will Ed Feick fill the next vacancy? If I recall, he received the next most votes, ahead of Craig Stahl and Bob Warner. -- Noah on Garfield Street
Jason Singer
Aug 9, 2010

Q: Now that Diedre Cole's been named to the city commission, will Ed Feick fill the next vacancy? If I recall, he received the next most votes, ahead of Craig Stahl and Bob Warner.

-- Noah on Garfield Street

 A: Thanks for the question, Noah. The quick answer to question is no, Ed Feick would not automatically get the next open seat. But he could. It would be up to the city commission.

The city's charter only says what to do when it comes to the "first vacancy" after an election. The first vacancy "shall be filled by the candidate for city commissioner ... who had the highest number of votes but was not elected," the charter says. In this case, that was obviously Diedre Cole.

But the city's charter doesn't specify what to do for a second or third vacancy. And when a city doesn't have a specific law, it must abide by state law. Under state law, the legislative body (in this case, the city commission) votes to appoint someone to a vacancy. So that's what the city would do if another opening occurred.

This happened in December 2008, when the city commission appointed Pervis Brown Jr. to an open seat after Dennis Murray Jr. resigned. So theoretically, the city could appoint Ed Feick, but it doesn't have to. It would probably collect resumes and do an interview process as it did before it selected Pervis Brown.

Read more questions and answers in today's Sandusky Register.

 To ask Jason a question, send a letter to 314 W. Market St. or e-mail singer@sanduskyregister.com. Please include your first name and a location in the e-mail, e.g. "John from Decatur Street."

Comments

Captain Gutz

Once the "first" vacancy is filled, the next vacancy becomes the "first".

gene44870

Yea this is why I didnt vote for the police chief , . its had nothin to do with what she might have been able to do, as it was when the chiefs job was decided .I was hoping to get someone in there that was going to stay for the full term and I can see that may not happen , cause under law she cant hold both jobs , and she has from what I understand. is going to return to her police chiefs job .

I feel like my rights are being taken away again , by the city council deciding who is going to be a replacement for her , when it was the voters  that placed her there ..

I feel like its just one more right that has been taken from me . She by all rights shouldnt been on there in the first place , cause it was the council that suspended her  and common sense and not the law told me that she shouldnt been able to even  run , due to a conflect of intrest clause

I mean come on . this really hasnt solved , but added to a drama that has prevented the city from healing and growing .Not to mention the loss of active police officers on the streets , cause you have to pay not just one , but two police chiefs , and only one is really fullfilling the job . The other is a comissioner and the only high paying council women , cause she is still entitled to her police chiefs pay .

So tax payers , what do you all think of that .