HomeMy WebLinkAboutLegal Opinion_Resign to Run Turnquest_09/23/2011 McWilliams, Lori
From: Keith Davis [Keith @corbettandwhite.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:51 PM
To: McWilliams, Lori
Cc: Couzzo, Michael; Telfrin, Debra
Subject: RE: Resign to Run
Lori:
If Mr. Turnquest is re- elected to a new two year term in March 2012, then he will be an "officer" for purposes
of the "resign to run" law if he chooses to qualify later in the year for the District 82 Seat. As such, and since the Village
Council Seat term and the District 82 Seat term would then overlap, he will be required to file with you, his resignation
from the Village Council in order to qualify for the District 82 Seat. That resignation must be effective no later than
either the date that he would take the District 82 Seat if elected, or the date that his successor on the Village Council
would be required to take office (whichever of these dates is earlier).
Sec. 2.05 of the Village Charter provides the process for filling a vacant Council Seat. If Mr. Turnquest lost the
District 82 Seat race, he could hold his Village Council Seat until the conclusion of that process.
Note that I did not verify the qualifying period for the District 82 Seat and am assuming for purposes of this
discussion that it falls after March 2012.
Keith W. Davis, Esquire
&0MW V " ,
Tel: (561) 586 -7116
Fax: (561) 586 -9611
Email: keith(a,corbettandwhite.com
From: McWilliams, Lori fmailto :Imcwilliams(dtequesta.org
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:33 AM
To: Keith Davis
Cc: Trela White
Subject: Resign to Run
Keith,
Mike asked me to look into the resign to run rule if Calvin should decide to again run for Council and take office for
another term in March.
I know that he does not have to resign to run at this time because his current term expires in March before he would
qualify to run for the District 82 seat. However, what if he runs again, wins and is again on Council next March. He
would have to resign the Village Council seat in order to qualify for the District 82 seat. Correct?
That is how I read the statute and AGO.
Lori
1