Another Unelected and Unaccountable “Committee”

Steps In on Montrose’s District 4 Vacancy

Montrose City Council has a vacancy in District 4 after Councilor Dave Frank resigned on September 7. The city opened applications, set a September 23 deadline, scheduled interviews for the October 5 work session, and plans a formal vote on October 6. That timeline follows the City Charter. A group calling itself Neighbors for Good Governance, led by Lynda Gann, has now sent a questionnaire to applicants and wants the answers posted on its Facebook page. Community interest in who sits on council is healthy. Turning a private group’s survey into a public scorecard for an appointment the charter assigns to the elected council is something else.

The Charter Assigns the Choice to Council

Article I, Section 11 of the Montrose City Charter is straightforward. When a vacancy occurs, the remaining councilors choose a qualified person by majority vote within 30 days. The appointee serves until the next municipal election. Eligibility is also clear: the person must be a District 4 resident for the prior 12 months and eligible to register to vote. The city posted the application, collected letters of interest, and will interview candidates in public. That is the process voters approved when they adopted the charter. Council has used similar appointment steps before, in 2017 and 2021. The remaining members of the Council are the ones the charter names as decision-makers.

This is not an election, it is an appointment to fill a vacancy. Voters already chose the body that must make the choice. The charter does not hand that duty to a Facebook page or a private questionnaire.

The Questionnaire Goes Further

Neighbors for Good Governance asked every District 4 applicant to answer a series of questions with the idea they would publish the replies on Facebook. Asking questions is not illegal. Publishing answers can inform neighbors. The problem is the implied next step: treating the group’s page as a filter that should shape or undermine the council’s vote and legitimacy. The charter does not create a citizens’ committee to pre-screen appointees. It also does not require applicants to submit to an extra questionnaire run by an unelected organization.

A Shadow Process, Not Public Service

Residents can watch the October 5 interviews and the October 6 vote. They can review the applications already on file with the city through an official records request and contact councilors directly. Those official steps exist because the charter puts the decision with the elected body. A Facebook questionnaire sits outside that structure. It lets a small group of unelected and unaccountable individuals decide which questions matter and how answers will be framed.

It is as though, with this questionnaire and other efforts by the same group, they are trying to build their own shadow government. The aim appears to be to steer outcomes the charter places with the elected council, and in doing so to subvert the will of the people who put their trust in that body. The attempt to influence the council’s decision this way is not helpful. It is an attempt to paint the council as illegitimate and incapable of doing the work voters elected it to do. The campaign comes from a small group of activists who purport to be simply informing the public, while doing what they can to undermine the integrity of a duly elected council performing its duties because they did not like the results of an election or simply want to control things moving forward without the scrutiny and accountability of an elected post.



What the Council Should Do

Council should stick to the published process. Interview the applicants on October 5. Vote on October 6. Weigh residency, experience, and how each person would work with the existing body. The appointment should rest on the official applications and the council’s own interviews, not on a prerequisite set by a Facebook page. If Gann and her group want a different system, they can campaign for a charter change or run candidates when District 4 is next on the ballot. Until then, the appointment is the council’s job. Pretending otherwise undercuts the officials’ voters already chose.