Brookings Banter

Tonight the City Council discussed the process to appoint a member of the council to replace Mike Reitz who resigned effective July 30th.   I was appointed in 2003 when Scott Munsterman resigned his seat after winning the mayoral race against Mike Bartley.  I ran and won a three year seat the next year.  Bartley was elected 2 years ago to a council seat.  Tonight Mike suggested a more open process than the time I was appointed.

In 2003 six people applied for the appointment.   I was relatively unknown to the other six council members.  Scott was my chiropractor and Julie Whaley and her sister babysat me years and years ago, otherwise the other four did not personally know me.  Each of us was allowed to speak and then interviewed by the Council in an open session.  The Council then went into executive session to discuss qualifications.  After ~30 minutes they returned and Scott nominated me, it was seconded, and a unanimous approval vote followed.  I was surprised.  I went in with the attitude that I was too unknown and this was a chance to get my name out and then run for a seat next year.

Later on I heard through the grapevine that I was the unanimous second choice.  Three of the members wanted Zeno Wicks, a former city commisoner, and the other three wanted Mike Bartley.  After a lengthly debate and stalemate Scott stated that he would nominate me.  I was okay with how I got there because I wanted to be an incumbant during the next election.

Mike suggested tonight we use the same process Sioux Falls uses to avoid going into executive session.  We will use ballots until a majority selects a candidate.  If we reach a stalemate no one will be appointed. The City Charter states that we don't have to appoint anyone as long as there is six members.

I agree it is a more open process.  Although if that process would have been used in 2003 I have to wonder if I would have been appointed.