All posts in the topic City Council vacancies - special elections? (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Roseville Issues Forum

Summary

There are 5 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Roger Toogood at Jul 07 22:52 UTC

From: Dan Roe Date: Jul 03 17:10 UTC Short link

During the recent appointment process resulting from the passing of
councilmember Tom Kough, there were several expressions of concern that we fill
vacancies on the city council as "democratically" as possible.

One preference expressed was for the use of special elections in more instances
than state law currently requires.  State law requires special elections with
more than 2 years left on a vacant term, and allows cities to require special
elections in other instances.

Right now, our city code requires a special election only in the "other
instance" of a councilmember assuming an "incompatible office" (one that you
can't hold at the same time as being a councilmember).

I have brought forward a proposed ordinance to liberalize our use of special
elections in 2 ways:  First, to use special elections for all types of
vacancies (not just incompatible office), and second to use them for all
vacancies except those that occur late enough in a term where there will be a
regular election already going on for that seat (up to approximately May of the
last year of the term).

The city council will hear comments from the public on that proposed ordinance
at our 6 PM July 14th meeting.

Some discussion topics related to council special elections include:
-Is it preferable to have councilmembers that are appointed by the council who
serve for as much as nearly 2 years without having faced the voters, versus
elected councilmembers whenever possible? (Is it necessary to be elected rather
than appointed to have "legitimacy" or accountability?)
-Should the cost (estimated by city staff to be $20,000 per special election)
enter into the discussion?  If so, how important of a factor should it be?
-Should a special election for a vacancy be going on at the same time as a
general election for the same seat?  (If so, how much overlap in the schedules
of the 2 elections is acceptable?)

The city council would appreciate input from the community as we consider this
proposed ordinance.

More background information can be found here:
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000

From: Roger Toogood Date: Jul 07 17:32 UTC Short link

Dan- Thank you for bringing forth your ideas on how best to handle City Council
Vacancies. It is clear that the City needs something more than what the current
State Law provides for. In my judgment two years is to long of a time for an
appointment system by the City Council to be used. At the same time your
proposal of ten weeks for an election system seems impractical.
I can see lots of potential problems with the idea of going to special
elections if only 10 weeks is remaining in the persons term. I need to think
about the matter more and listen to other peoples ideas before making a formal
recommendation. I hope to be at the City Council Meeting on July 14th. Roger
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dan Roe<mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net>
  To: Roseville Issues Forum<mailto:roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:12 PM
  Subject: [RIF] City Council vacancies - special elections?


  During the recent appointment process resulting from the passing of
councilmember Tom Kough, there were several expressions of concern that we fill
vacancies on the city council as "democratically" as possible.

  One preference expressed was for the use of special elections in more
instances than state law currently requires.  State law requires special
elections with more than 2 years left on a vacant term, and allows cities to
require special elections in other instances.

  Right now, our city code requires a special election only in the "other
instance" of a councilmember assuming an "incompatible office" (one that you
can't hold at the same time as being a councilmember).

  I have brought forward a proposed ordinance to liberalize our use of special
elections in 2 ways:  First, to use special elections for all types of
vacancies (not just incompatible office), and second to use them for all
vacancies except those that occur late enough in a term where there will be a
regular election already going on for that seat (up to approximately May of the
last year of the term).

  The city council will hear comments from the public on that proposed
ordinance at our 6 PM July 14th meeting.

  Some discussion topics related to council special elections include:
  -Is it preferable to have councilmembers that are appointed by the council
who serve for as much as nearly 2 years without having faced the voters, versus
elected councilmembers whenever possible? (Is it necessary to be elected rather
than appointed to have "legitimacy" or accountability?)
  -Should the cost (estimated by city staff to be $20,000 per special election)
enter into the discussion?  If so, how important of a factor should it be?
  -Should a special election for a vacancy be going on at the same time as a
general election for the same seat?  (If so, how much overlap in the schedules
of the 2 elections is acceptable?)

  The city council would appreciate input from the community as we consider
this proposed ordinance.

  More background information can be found here:
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000<http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000>


  Dan Roe

  Info about Dan Roe:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe>

  This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2<http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2>
  -----------------------------------------
    To post, send your message to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
    To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
    in subject line and send to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>

    More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues>

    E-Democracy.Org rules:
http://e-democracy.org/rules<http://e-democracy.org/rules>
  -----------------------------------------
  Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/>

   Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html>

From: Dan Roe Date: Jul 07 18:09 UTC Short link

Just a quick clarification of the proposed ordinance based on an error in
Roger's posting:

The proposal is to have special elections up to 10 weeks before the start of
filing for office for the city election, not 10 weeks before the end of the
term, as Roger had thought.

With the proposed timing, the practical effect is that there would be about 6
months remaining on the term in cases where no special election would be held
(not 10 weeks).

From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Jul 07 20:10 UTC Short link

At a May or June 2008 council meeting, I provided a little bit of background to
the members on the opinions shared with the council on the last time the
special election ordinance was discussed and passed back in 2003.

There were essentially two camps that existed.  The first camp believed that we
should strive to always have "elected" officials regardless additional costs
and small difficulties.  Several people in this group said that more than a
year is too long for an appointment.

As a note, the appointment that was pending would have been for 2 years.

The second camp said that they wanted Amy Ihlan appointed to the seat and
therefore were opposed to special elections.  They didn't have a public policy
position.  They had a position based upon personal politics.  Many of these
people supported her campaign.  It wasn't a position that was best for the
city, but best for them personally.

No one really brought forward a public policy reason to support a process where
you could have appointees serving for 2 years.

-------

I thank Roger Toogood for sharing his position on the issue.  I took special
note of his statement, "In my judgment two years is to long of a time for an
appointment system by the City Council..."

What I find interesting is that his current statement is a 100% opposite from
what he testified back in 2003.  On November 17th, 2003, he called for the
appointment of Amy Ihlan and opposed any kind of special election.  He also
essentially called for an appointment by consensus (their term for unanimous)
vote of the council.

As a side note, the motion in early 2004 to appoint Tammy Pust failed on a
split council vote and Mr. Klausing single handedly appointed Amy Ihlan.

Then again on November 24, 2003, Mr. Toogood reiterated his position in
opposition of special elections at the council meeting.

Why the sudden change?

------

While Mr. Roe clarified that there would be much longer than a 10 week
timeframe for a special election, I do question Mr. Toogood's concern about
this had 10 weeks been the proposal before us.

To the best of my knowledge, the State of Minnesota has required special
elections to fill mid-term vacancies for members of the legislature since
October 13, 1857.  Not a typo, 1857.  If there was an amendment I missed that
instituted this provision at a later date, I will stand corrected.

Current law providing the specific detailed process for these special elections
was most recently updated in 1980, but I highly suspect that the general
process has been relatively consistent since 1857, since special elections
appear to have been required since that time.

If there is a vacancy of a legislative seat, and it doesn't occur right before
the state general election for which there would already be an election for the
position, the Governor has to call a special election.

It appears that the timeframe for this special election is around 30 days.
Yes, 30 days.

So while Mr. Roe's proposal has a much longer timeframe than 10 weeks, the
State of Minnesota has proved that you could easily follow a 10 week timeframe
if there were no laws prohibiting it.

-----

I think this short timeframe for a special election discussion is important to
mention because there has been a lot of what I would term whining by some city
staff over how hard it is to hold special elections.  Well there have been a
lot of special elections for the legislature over the past 150 years and
election employees seem to have been able to handle it pretty well.  In today's
modern era where we have optical scan ballots, telephones, cell phones,
internet, etc., I would tend to believe that they have a much easier time
holding these special elections today than they did in 1980, 1950, 1900, or
1860.  I don't believe our elections employees recognize how good they have it
today here in the State of Minnesota, a model of election efficiency in our
nation.



John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004


-----Original Message-----
From: ROGER TOOGOOD [mailto:rtoogood@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:32 PM
To: Roseville Issues Forum; Dan Roe
Subject: Re: [RIF] City Council vacancies - special elections?

Dan- Thank you for bringing forth your ideas on how best to handle City Council
Vacancies. It is clear that the City needs something more than what the current
State Law provides for. In my judgment two years is to long of a time for an
appointment system by the City Council to be used. At the same time your
proposal of ten weeks for an election system seems impractical.
I can see lots of potential problems with the idea of going to special
elections if only 10 weeks is remaining in the persons term. I need to think
about the matter more and listen to other peoples ideas before making a formal
recommendation. I hope to be at the City Council Meeting on July 14th. Roger
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dan Roe<mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net>
  To: Roseville Issues Forum<mailto:roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:12 PM
  Subject: [RIF] City Council vacancies - special elections?


  During the recent appointment process resulting from the passing of
councilmember Tom Kough, there were several expressions of concern that we fill
vacancies on the city council as "democratically" as possible.

  One preference expressed was for the use of special elections in more
instances than state law currently requires.  State law requires special
elections with more than 2 years left on a vacant term, and allows cities to
require special elections in other instances.

  Right now, our city code requires a special election only in the "other
instance" of a councilmember assuming an "incompatible office" (one that you
can't hold at the same time as being a councilmember).

  I have brought forward a proposed ordinance to liberalize our use of special
elections in 2 ways:  First, to use special elections for all types of
vacancies (not just incompatible office), and second to use them for all
vacancies except those that occur late enough in a term where there will be a
regular election already going on for that seat (up to approximately May of the
last year of the term).

  The city council will hear comments from the public on that proposed
ordinance at our 6 PM July 14th meeting.

  Some discussion topics related to council special elections include:
  -Is it preferable to have councilmembers that are appointed by the council
who serve for as much as nearly 2 years without having faced the voters, versus
elected councilmembers whenever possible? (Is it necessary to be elected rather
than appointed to have "legitimacy" or accountability?)
  -Should the cost (estimated by city staff to be $20,000 per special election)
enter into the discussion?  If so, how important of a factor should it be?
  -Should a special election for a vacancy be going on at the same time as a
general election for the same seat?  (If so, how much overlap in the schedules
of the 2 elections is acceptable?)

  The city council would appreciate input from the community as we consider
this proposed ordinance.

  More background information can be found here:
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000<http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000>


  Dan Roe

  Info about Dan Roe:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe>

  This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2<http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2>
  -----------------------------------------
    To post, send your message to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
    To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
    in subject line and send to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>

    More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues>

    E-Democracy.Org rules:
http://e-democracy.org/rules<http://e-democracy.org/rules>
  -----------------------------------------
  Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/>

   Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html>

Roger Toogood

Info about Roger Toogood: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rogertoogood

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/jpbj24r0aig9kH4LvmHfy
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

From: Roger Toogood Date: Jul 07 22:52 UTC Short link

My appreciation to Dan Roe for pointing out my error relative to the 10 weeks
starting before the filing date and not before the end of the term. That is an
important clarification. It is interesting to note that in general
conversations I had over the 4th of July Holiday that other citizens had made
the same misinterpretation. Shows the value of RIF in helping to get the facts
out.
My thanks also to John K for his historical perspective. Most of us dont keep
such detailed information on the past. It is helpful to learn from our past
wisdom or mistakes.
As I noted in my first e-mail " I need to think about the matter more and
listen to other peoples ideas before making a formal recommendation." The input
that Dan and John have provided has already helped. John- I would not classify
my preliminary thoughts on 7-7-08 as a "sudden change" from what I expressed on
11-24 -2003. When you get older you will learn that 5 years is a valuable
period of time and that learning from past experiences and being flexible can
be a good thing. I know that your input and knowledge on this topic along with
others will be helpful so the City can come up with a policy that will be in
the best interest of Roseville.   ----- Original Message -----
  From: John M. Kysylyczyn<mailto:john@ksolutionsllc.com>
  To: 'Roseville Issues Forum'<mailto:roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
  Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [RIF] City Council vacancies - special elections?


  At a May or June 2008 council meeting, I provided a little bit of background
to the members on the opinions shared with the council on the last time the
special election ordinance was discussed and passed back in 2003.

  There were essentially two camps that existed.  The first camp believed that
we should strive to always have "elected" officials regardless additional costs
and small difficulties.  Several people in this group said that more than a
year is too long for an appointment.

  As a note, the appointment that was pending would have been for 2 years.

  The second camp said that they wanted Amy Ihlan appointed to the seat and
therefore were opposed to special elections.  They didn't have a public policy
position.  They had a position based upon personal politics.  Many of these
people supported her campaign.  It wasn't a position that was best for the
city, but best for them personally.

  No one really brought forward a public policy reason to support a process
where you could have appointees serving for 2 years.

  -------

  I thank Roger Toogood for sharing his position on the issue.  I took special
note of his statement, "In my judgment two years is to long of a time for an
appointment system by the City Council..."

  What I find interesting is that his current statement is a 100% opposite from
what he testified back in 2003.  On November 17th, 2003, he called for the
appointment of Amy Ihlan and opposed any kind of special election.  He also
essentially called for an appointment by consensus (their term for unanimous)
vote of the council.

  As a side note, the motion in early 2004 to appoint Tammy Pust failed on a
split council vote and Mr. Klausing single handedly appointed Amy Ihlan.

  Then again on November 24, 2003, Mr. Toogood reiterated his position in
opposition of special elections at the council meeting.

  Why the sudden change?

  ------

  While Mr. Roe clarified that there would be much longer than a 10 week
timeframe for a special election, I do question Mr. Toogood's concern about
this had 10 weeks been the proposal before us.

  To the best of my knowledge, the State of Minnesota has required special
elections to fill mid-term vacancies for members of the legislature since
October 13, 1857.  Not a typo, 1857.  If there was an amendment I missed that
instituted this provision at a later date, I will stand corrected.

  Current law providing the specific detailed process for these special
elections was most recently updated in 1980, but I highly suspect that the
general process has been relatively consistent since 1857, since special
elections appear to have been required since that time.

  If there is a vacancy of a legislative seat, and it doesn't occur right
before the state general election for which there would already be an election
for the position, the Governor has to call a special election.

  It appears that the timeframe for this special election is around 30 days.
Yes, 30 days.

  So while Mr. Roe's proposal has a much longer timeframe than 10 weeks, the
State of Minnesota has proved that you could easily follow a 10 week timeframe
if there were no laws prohibiting it.

  -----

  I think this short timeframe for a special election discussion is important
to mention because there has been a lot of what I would term whining by some
city staff over how hard it is to hold special elections.  Well there have been
a lot of special elections for the legislature over the past 150 years and
election employees seem to have been able to handle it pretty well.  In today's
modern era where we have optical scan ballots, telephones, cell phones,
internet, etc., I would tend to believe that they have a much easier time
holding these special elections today than they did in 1980, 1950, 1900, or
1860.  I don't believe our elections employees recognize how good they have it
today here in the State of Minnesota, a model of election efficiency in our
nation.



  John M. Kysylyczyn
  K Solutions LLC, owner
  3083 Victoria Street
  Roseville, MN  55113
  email: <email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
  home office: (651) 484-1384

  www.ksolutionsllc.com<http://www.ksolutionsllc.com/>
  Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004


  -----Original Message-----
  From: ROGER TOOGOOD [mailto:rtoogood@msn.com]
  Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:32 PM
  To: Roseville Issues Forum; Dan Roe
  Subject: Re: [RIF] City Council vacancies - special elections?

  Dan- Thank you for bringing forth your ideas on how best to handle City
Council Vacancies. It is clear that the City needs something more than what the
current State Law provides for. In my judgment two years is to long of a time
for an appointment system by the City Council to be used. At the same time your
proposal of ten weeks for an election system seems impractical.
  I can see lots of potential problems with the idea of going to special
elections if only 10 weeks is remaining in the persons term. I need to think
about the matter more and listen to other peoples ideas before making a formal
recommendation. I hope to be at the City Council Meeting on July 14th. Roger
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Dan Roe<mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net<mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net>>
    To: Roseville Issues
Forum<mailto:roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org<mailto:roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>>
    Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:12 PM
    Subject: [RIF] City Council vacancies - special elections?


    During the recent appointment process resulting from the passing of
councilmember Tom Kough, there were several expressions of concern that we fill
vacancies on the city council as "democratically" as possible.

    One preference expressed was for the use of special elections in more
instances than state law currently requires.  State law requires special
elections with more than 2 years left on a vacant term, and allows cities to
require special elections in other instances.

    Right now, our city code requires a special election only in the "other
instance" of a councilmember assuming an "incompatible office" (one that you
can't hold at the same time as being a councilmember).

    I have brought forward a proposed ordinance to liberalize our use of
special elections in 2 ways:  First, to use special elections for all types of
vacancies (not just incompatible office), and second to use them for all
vacancies except those that occur late enough in a term where there will be a
regular election already going on for that seat (up to approximately May of the
last year of the term).

    The city council will hear comments from the public on that proposed
ordinance at our 6 PM July 14th meeting.

    Some discussion topics related to council special elections include:
    -Is it preferable to have councilmembers that are appointed by the council
who serve for as much as nearly 2 years without having faced the voters, versus
elected councilmembers whenever possible? (Is it necessary to be elected rather
than appointed to have "legitimacy" or accountability?)
    -Should the cost (estimated by city staff to be $20,000 per special
election) enter into the discussion?  If so, how important of a factor should
it be?
    -Should a special election for a vacancy be going on at the same time as a
general election for the same seat?  (If so, how much overlap in the schedules
of the 2 elections is acceptable?)

    The city council would appreciate input from the community as we consider
this proposed ordinance.

    More background information can be found here:
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000<http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000<http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000<http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000>>


    Dan Roe

    Info about Dan Roe:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe%3Chttp://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe>>

    This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2<http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2<http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2%3Chttp://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6t3HhIGgy0xWSEY9YkLND2>>
    -----------------------------------------
      To post, send your message to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>%3Cmailto:<email obscured>>>
      To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
      in subject line and send to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>%3Cmailto:<email obscured>>>

      More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues%3Chttp://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues>>

      E-Democracy.Org rules:
http://e-democracy.org/rules<http://e-democracy.org/rules<http://e-democracy.org/rules%3Chttp://e-democracy.org/rules>>
    -----------------------------------------
    Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/<http://onlinegroups.net%3chttp//onlinegroups.net/>>

     Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html%3Chttp://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html>>

  Roger Toogood

  Info about Roger Toogood:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rogertoogood<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rogertoogood>

  This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/jpbj24r0aig9kH4LvmHfy<http://forumse-democracy.org/r/topic/jpbj24r0aig9kH4LvmHfy>
  -----------------------------------------
    To post, send your message to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
    To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
    in subject line and send to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>

    More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues>

    E-Democracy.Org rules:
http://e-democracy.org/rules<http://e-democracy.org/rules>
  -----------------------------------------
  Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/>

   Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html>


  John Kysylyczyn
  Roseville
  Info about John Kysylyczyn:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnmkysylyczyn<http://forums.e-democracyorg/p/johnmkysylyczyn>

  This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7EKxTMEQVypRtuRj8P4KCy<http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7EKxTMEQVypRtuRj8P4KCy>
  -----------------------------------------
    To post, send your message to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
    To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
    in subject line and send to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>

    More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues>

    E-Democracy.Org rules:
http://e-democracy.org/rules<http://e-democracy.org/rules>
  -----------------------------------------
  Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/>

   Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html>

Add to the topic City Council vacancies - special elections? [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Roseville Issues Forum, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Roseville Issues Forum, and post to this topic.

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate. Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.