FOWLER – After hearing strong feedback from members of the public and potential candidates, the Fowler City Council has decided to leave its vacant seat open until the November election.
On June 16, the city council held public interviews for those aiming to fill the seat left by former council member Leonard Hammer, who retired in late April. Each candidate was asked to share their visions for the future and their motivations for running, but the council ultimately moved to leave the seat open in favor of leaving it to residents in November.
“As we had time to think about this, for me it was election over selection,” said Mayor Juan Mejia in his comments. “There have been so many people that have stopped me in the community and said, ‘Let the people decide,’ … and the feedback was strong.”
The interviews took place after the agenda’s general administration items, and the public got to hear from five candidates. The interviewees included: Eric Hadden, Patric Jones, Luis Damian, Kam Boparai and Henry Flores.
The candidates were removed from the room before their interviews to not have the advantage of knowing the questions in advance, and the four council members alternated in giving each applicant the following prompts:
- “This position is roughly a four-month position. What is the impact you are hoping to achieve during that time?
- What do you think are the biggest challenges facing Fowler right now?
- When you think about Fowler 10 years from now, what would you like to see?
- The city can’t do everything at once. How would you decide what projects or services come first?
- Tell me the difference between serving this community and holding this seat.
- Tell us about a tough decision you’ve made, and how did you handle it?
- Not everyone on the council will always agree. How would you work through disagreements and still get things done?
- In summary, why do you think you’re the best applicant to fill the council vacancy?”
With regards to challenges facing the city, a common theme amongst the interviewees was city infrastructure, and their desire to see it strengthened. Speaking on leadership styles, many of the candidates placed an emphasis on listening to constituents and addressing fellow council members with respect during contentious discussions.
Some candidates, like Hadden and Damian, even expressed their preference of having the people vote rather than following through on the appointment process.
“(Residents) have made it quite clear they want an opportunity to vote for this seat, and they want this seat elected, not selected,” said Hadden during his interview. “I understand the need to continue to move this government forward, but all of you deserve the right to vote.”
Damian shared similar sentiments in his comments, saying that although he would love to give his expertise if selected by the council, he would like to “earn” the votes of residents if he decides to run later on.
Having heard each candidate’s unique perspective, the council went down the list of names to see if any motions would be made to elect one. The only candidate who received a motion was Jones, done by Councilmember Karnig Kazarian and seconded by Councilmember Daniel Parra.
Meijia and Mayor Pro Tem Amarjeet Gill voted against the motion, and with a 2-2 deadlock, it did not pass. Kazarian later noted in his comments that he only made the motion in favor of Jones because if an appointment was to be made that night, he wanted it to be based on some kind of public feedback, which he said Jones represented.
“I do believe it’s about elections, and the only way I felt comfortable making a nomination tonight was to have some semblance of the voice of the people,” said Kazarian in his comments. “The way I was able to go off of that was to look at past elections, and (Jones) was the top vote-getter of the non-elected candidates.”
Although the council did not appoint someone that night, Kazarian did not want candidates to feel like “it was all for nothing.” City Attorney Roy Santos reminded the public that going into this process, the city had two options: hold a special election or make an appointment.
It was determined at the May 5 meeting that the timeline for a special election would likely be impractical, so the council was almost forced into undergoing an appointment. By not selecting someone at the June 16 meeting, the five candidates were given an opportunity to speak in a public forum, and those interested in running in the formal election will be chosen directly by residents.
