This is in response to an article published on this website March 4, 2012, and subsequent issue of the Bonners Ferry Herald entitled “Moyie Council Vacancies a Strange Creature."  The author of the referenced article was clearly not conversant with the facts of the matter she references in that article.

I write this in an effort to inform the public of the true facts regarding the issues and accusations made in that article.

In April 2011, Councilman Geoff Hollenbeck obtained employment in North Dakota in the oil fields. At that time, the term of his employment there was uncertain, and it did in fact make him unavailable to perform his various duties as a councilperson while absent.

By June, 2011, Councilman Hollenbeck realized his employment in North Dakota was going to be of sufficient duration to interfere with his duties as a Councilperson. He promptly instructed the City Clerk to stop his pay and benefits.

He had not received pay since the regular Council meeting in April. However, at that time he did not submit a letter of resignation. He specifically instructed the Clerk to terminate his health insurance because his employment provided such.

The health insurance premium for June is paid in May, therefore his coverage would not terminate until the end of June. The Costco card privilege extends a year at a time, so by its terms did not terminate until December 31, 2011. 

The Mayor and Council discussed his unavailability from time to time in open meetings.

Councilman Hollenbeck still maintains his residence in Moyie Springs, where his family resides, and he returns home as his work schedule permits. He therefore continues to have legal status as a resident of the State of Idaho, Boundary County and City of Moyie Springs, and is still a registered voter, qualified to hold elected office in the City of Moyie Springs, Boundary County and the State of Idaho.

To my knowledge, his employment status is consistent with that of several North Idaho residents who are presently choosing to take jobs away from their homes in the North Dakota oil boom for the short time that it is expected to last.

The Mayor and Council appropriately did not press Councilman Hollenbeck for his resignation until it became apparent that his job would continue the better part, if not the full balance, of his term of office. For this reason, and the need to insure that the City’s business was not interrupted due to a lack of quorum, it was necessary and appropriate to ask Councilman Hollenbeck for a written resignation.

In order to conduct the City’s business, a four member Council requires a quorum of three members in attendance. With Councilman Hollenbeck unavailable, if any other Councilperson, due to death, illness or other valid emergency, were unable to be present, City business could not be conducted for lack of quorum.

Upon request of the City, and with Councilman Hollenbeck’s concurrence and in recognition of the inconvenience to the City, he submitted his written resignation when he arrived home to visit his family between the September and October regular Council meetings. 

For two very appropriate reasons the Mayor did not immediately appoint a replacement to fill the vacancy.

The first was it was only one month before the election in which the new appointee would be required to run for office if they wished to continue.

The second reason was the Mayor did not consider it appropriate to influence any voter’s choice by such an appointment that close to the election.

It made better sense to wait a few weeks until the results of the election were in and appoint the voters' choice and swear him or her in at that time.

As to the proposed ordinance to terminate an elected Councilperson’s status as a Councilperson, this is being considered to address the problem of not having a quorum to conduct business if for any reason a Councilperson should be repeatedly absent, thereby increasing the risk of failure to have a quorum by reason of one or more other Councilpersons were unable to attend.

Idaho Code § 50-705 is captioned “Meetings of Council – Quorum – Discipline” and provides in pertinent part as follows:  “… a number less than a majority may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as the council may, by ordinance, have previously prescribed” (emphasis added).