Editorial: City council should stick with precedent

The sudden death of Puyallup Councilmember George Dill’s last November raised questions about the future of his seat.

Who is qualified to replace him? When would this decision be made? How would the decision be made? And, perhaps most importantly, would this person replace Dill as a member of the minority or join the majority council faction?

Out of respect for Dill, the council decided not to fill his seat for the remainder of his term, which ended at the end of 2009. Instead, they will proceed the same way they did when filling Councilmember Kathy Turner’s vacated seat two years ago: Leaving it up to the incoming council.

Some residents believe the council has an obligation to pick a candidate who shares the same beliefs as Dill. After all, he won his seat and was slated to be the mayor in 2010. Aho lost. Clearly, they argue, the public made their choice known when voting Dill in for a second term and Aho has said the two didn’t have many things in common.

Others think Aho is the right choice, and they point to the reasons Council appointed Rick Hansen two years ago. Turner and Hansen ran against each other for the at-large position. Hansen lost. When Turner had to vacate her seat to move into the at-large position, Hansen applied along with more than a dozen others interested in serving on council. He was, though, the only one who had campaigned during that general election.

When the council appointed Hansen 4-2, The Herald supported that decision. Not only did he invest his time and energy to campaign, but he also had the courage to put his beliefs on the line. Those beliefs, as we’ve witnessed in the following two years, vary greatly from Turner, who he was replacing. At the time, Councilmember John Knutsen made it very clear he wouldn’t even consider anyone other than Hansen because of the previous work he had put into campaigning and encouraged candidates he thought were qualified to step forward earlier in the future.

Precedent was set. If that decision was good enough to place Hansen in a council seat, why shouldn’t it be adequate for Aho, who followed a similar path? We think it is.

True, the margin between Dill’s win and Aho’s loss wasn’t as narrow as Turner’s and Hansen’s campaign. But it was also much closer than when Dill beat incumbent Rosemary Eckerson in 2005. In fact, Aho’s 1,213 votes are more than Eckerson received in 2001 when she won her District 2 seat and more than Val Offenbecher had when she was re-elected into her District 2 seat in 2003.

Aho should not be unilaterally dismissed because he holds different beliefs than Dill. Even with some of Dill’s supporters in the candidate pool, council will never find an exact replica.

Furthermore, Dill wasn’t re-elected solely because he shares the same complaints as Knutsen or Hansen. His appeal came from his dedication to the community and the many ways he served the city. Hopefully this is something all the candidates have in common but its something Aho has already revealed.