Tied council election to be resolved Monday

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Nevada Daily Mail

When the Nevada City Council vote was tallied Tuesday, one of the two open seats on the council was decided with Jayne Novak having been re-elected to the Nevada City Council with 169 votes. The second open seat was to go to the candidate with the second highest vote total, however, Ryan Watts and Michael Brown ended the day tied for second with 152 votes, and Annie Daugherty a distant fourth with 115 votes.

The tie vote between Nevada City Council candidates Ryan Watts and Michael Brown will be resolved Monday, April 20, at 10 a.m., during a special city council meeting in the council chambers with a coin toss as was chosen by both candidates.

In a public letter sent to both candidates on Friday, Nevada City Clerk Bev Baker told the candidates that the canvas of the vote that was released at 1 p.m., Friday, shows a tie vote and the city clerk and the city of Nevada have two options under state law.

According to Section 115.157 RSMo. Subparagraphs 3 and 4:

"When the election is certified, the Clerk may issue a proclamation stating that the tie occurred and calling a special election in not less than fourteen days naming the two candidates and the office to be filled. The second alternative is that the Clerk may, if the candidates agree, notify the public and the candidates of a time and place of drawing, and after five days notice, select the winner by 'lot.' This can be accomplished by a flip of a coin, drawing straws, or drawing names from a sealed container -- as the candidates may agree. This procedure cannot be utilized unless both candidates agree."

According to the letter sent to the candidates "the city supports selection of candidates by suffrage, that the cost is not and should not deter either of you from asking that the city further pursue the democratic process which it is dedicated to and which it supports wholeheartedly. It is your right and obligation to control the procedural decision. Whatever you decide will be supported by the city.

"As is your option, if you both agree to make the determination by 'lot' it is suggested that the city clerk would give notice to the press (with copies to you) establishing a mutually convenient time, not sooner than five days, and the drawing or coin toss, as you might mutually agree, would be made in the presence of:

The City Clerk;

The County Clerk (Election authority);

And the City Council;

The representatives of the media;

And any other officials either of you might request.

"If you don't agree, the city clerk will call a run-off election immediately, and coordinate the date with the county clerk. We do need a decision please. You are free to confer with each other if you wish.

"We have asked the City's general counsel to meet with both of you simultaneously, if either of you wish for further explanation of such procedures or want to ask questions. We do need a decision how you would like to proceed ...

"This is intended to be an open letter to the end that the public is kept fully informed. A copy will be provided to the news media.

Comments

View 4 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Probably the best reason not to bother to vote in local elections. How about 2 out of 3? Or the old way it was done in Chicago, vote early and often. Shar Barber.

-- Posted by bobbieloubarber on Tue, Apr 14, 2015, at 10:21 AM
It appears most of the city residents took that very approach not to vote.

-- Posted by ccmom on Tue, Apr 14, 2015, at 8:58 PM
Quite to the contrary Bobbie, this is an excellent example for our children to witness the power of one vote. All too often is the mantra that one vote doesn't count. In the precarious situation Mr. Watts and I have landed, one vote would have decided the election. Given our circumstances, the tie breaker is the best alternative to which we have both amiably agreed to decide the one vote. Low voter participation is the cause of the statistical anomaly that has resulted. The more votes cast, especially given four candidates, the much more highly unlikely an election could end up with a tie. Do I wish one more person would have voted, yes- either outcome. That is all futile speculation at this point and the people of Nevada can feel comfortable knowing that the top two vote recipients will be the seated council. Come Monday, the tie will break and we'll have a clear winner. The message to the community needs to be participation, cooperation, and progressive improvement in attitudes and actions. The way to start is with one person, one vote.

-- Posted by Michael Brown on Thu, Apr 16, 2015, at 3:09 PM
Re: Michal Brown. I would like to clarify a few things. Bobbie did not post a comment,I Shar Barber used her password,(cyber hacking). Thanks for the civic lesson,but we voted and cancelled each other out, so "one person, one vote" didn't work. Now if there's another tie, let's do it the manly democratic way and arm wrestle for it! As for low voter turn out, do like the old political machines use to do, promise them something, money, job, dinner, ect.

-- Posted by bobbieloubarber on Fri, Apr 17, 2015, at 10:25 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register