The agenda is out for the next City Council gathering, and it looks almost very much like the July 25th meeting agenda. Of course, that’s because the ADU discussion dominated the previous session and most of the agenda items had to be carried over.

Still, there are a few new items of business to conduct and six new Councilor motions to consider. One of them, a motion by Councilor Erik Gitschier to “Have the City Solicitor provide the City Council with a ruling on substantive changes to the ADU ordinance during hearing and whether or not the ADU ordinance should be re-advertised based on the changes.”

There has been some debate whether the amended ordinance must now go back to a public hearing, with Councilor Gitschier arguing it needs to on social media. It appears Section 42, Part 1 of the City Charter backs up his argument:

From my pedestrian understanding of legal language, it sounds like the ADU debate drags on at least another two weeks.

The other item of interest to me is Councilor Kim Scott’s motion asking for the legal requirements for succession when filling a vacant elected office.

That situation came into play early during the first term under district representation, when School Committee member Andy Descoteaux stepped down in March of 2022 and was replaced by Susie Chhoun. That followed the same pattern used under the prior system, when there were nine councilors and six SC members who would be replaced by the 10th place and 7th place finisher respectively if a vacancy was created.

While there are some who question whether that should be the case, the issue was never specifically addressed as part of the settlement that brought about the change in election systems and there are other communities that follow a similar process, so there doesn’t appear to be much to fight over.

The bigger battle Councilor Scott’s motion may reveal is what happens when an elected official runs unopposed, as will be the case in 2 of the 8 City Council districts and 3 of the 4 School Committee districts, plus the two At-Large spots this November.

That scenario has also been ignored. It’s something I’ve personally harped on since the Descoteaux departure less than three months into his term. The city got lucky in that case, as there was a contested election and Chhoun replacing him was an easy fix. But to not have the foresight to realize district representation would create scenarios similar to State Representative and Congressional races, where incumbents often run unopposed, was a glaring oversight of the settlement agreement and was compounded by the Council not addressing it prior to now.

And remember, Councilor Scott’s motion only asks a question. It doesn’t necessarily mean the issue gets debated or decided prior to the election or before the new elected bodies are sworn in next January.

Should there be a special election? Should the Council or School Committee vote someone to fill the slot? Should the bodies vote jointly, as is done with the Lowell Voke (yes, I still call it that!) vacancies?

These are important questions that need to be answered. Based on the lack of challengers for 7 of the 17 seats on the ballot this November, the sooner the better