Sedona resident Doug Blackwell (pictured) spoke in favor only filling Vice Mayor John Bradshaw's open seat until the 2010 election.  Said Blackwell, "I came from a radical town in California that appointed its mayor.  That mayor turned out to be a communist.  I'm not saying that's what will happen here but it shows what can happen when the council makes appointments and not the people.  That town was Berkley.

Sedona City Council vote to let voters fill Bradshaw seat vacancy in 2010 election

By Tommy Acosta

SEDONA, AZ (October 29, 2009) - The Sedona City Council at its Oct. 27 meeting unanimously amended its city code regarding council vacancies to mirror the state statute.

The amended code now provides a choice of either appointing a replacement for the unexpired term of a council vacancy or appointing a replacement until the next election.

Further, at the same meeting, the council voted 5-2, with Councilor Nancy Scagnelli and Councilor Pud Colquitt in opposition, to fill the current vacant seat relinquished by Vice Mayor John Bradshaw with an appointee to serve until the 2010 election. The seat then opens to the electorate as a two-year position. 

There are currently two appointees serving on the council: Councilor Colquitt, who replaced former councilmember Ramon Gomez; and Councilor Mark DiNunzio, who replaced former councilmember Marc Sterling.

A new appointee will mean there will be three appointed members on the council with four elected members until the 2010 election, six months from now.

The council believed until its Oct. 13, 2009 meeting it had the right to fill a seat for an unexpired term or an appointment until the next election. Councilor DiNunzio pointed out that Sedona had no choice because the city code on filling vacancies stipulated the vacant seat must be appointed for the full unexpired term.

The request to amend the code to coincide with the state’s statute was made by Councilor DiNunzio.

Councilor Scagnelli argued against holding a 2010 election for Bradshaw’s seat, stating the present council appointees were doing a good job and there was no necessity to fill it any other way but through an appointment.

“If it’s not broken don’t fix it,” she said. “We’ve had really good luck appointing people. I’ve read about people saying we’re trying to protect a voting bloc. This is about leadership and stability for the city. We’re taking this unusual situation and trying to fix something that is not broken.”

Mayor Rob Adams countered the council is not as sound as Councilor Scagnelli thinks.

“There is a perception here that something is broken,” he said. “The public should have the right to determine who sits for the full term.”

Councilor Surber agreed with Councilor Scagnelli that the recent good appointments are proof they work well for the city.

“The appointments we made are good appointments,” he said. “I think appointing is a good thing to do.”

Vice-Mayor Bradshaw, serving his last night as a council member, reiterated his claim there would not be enough people running for council next election so appointing someone for his unexpired term was the way to go.

“In general I want the community to have a say on what happens,” he said. “We have made good appointments. I don’t think appointing council members is not the way to go. Last election we had three people running for three seats. By the council appointing we will know we have a good person on the seat. My biggest concern is to have people decide and there is no decision there for people to make.”

Councilor Cliff Hamilton said the numbers are different for the 2010 election.

“My score is there are 18 people out there who have indicated they are running,” he said. “That exceeds triple anything I have ever seen. I don’t think we have a problem.”

He also addressed Councilor Scagnelli’s observation on fixing things that are not broken.

“What is not broken is the right of the people to elect their own government,” he said. “It worked for 200 years in our country – It’s about maintaining the most sacred right in our country: the right to elect our government.”

The public spoke in favor of allowing elections.

“With an election process citizens have the best chance,” said Jawn McKinley.

“Let the people decide,” Paul Chevalier asked the council.

Councilor DiNunzio summed up his support for an election:  “The underlying principle trumps all the arguments for an appointment,” he said.

Despite having spoken in favor of the appointed over the elected, Bradshaw and Surber voted for the people to have the final say on who occupies Bradshaw’s seat after the 2010 election.

Said Bradshaw, “I’m going to vote for this resolution, but I’m holding Councilor Hamilton responsible to make sure there are enough candidates.”

Councilor Scagnelli, observing how Surber and Bradshaw voted, addressed the perception that a voting bloc led by her has been dominating council decisions since the last election.

The voting bloc,” she said, “has apparently been dissolved.”

 #1 What amazes me is the insistence by two council members that appointing government representatives is better than electing them. What is so transparent is the desperation the majority is experiencing trying to keep their power.

If they lose the majority, there will be an NSA designation for Sedona; there will be no alternate route through Red Rock Crossing and the lights for 89A will be toast.