FAIRMONT — It was a decision that encompassed only eight minutes of time for the Fairmont City Council earlier this week, but has the potential to impact residents for years to come.

In a 3-2 vote, the council approved Councilman Tom Hawkins’ slate of Fairmont Charter Commission candidates, a list of eight names he selected from a roster of 16 applicants scheduled to be submitted to a judge for final appointment, with others on the list being named alternates. The new list includes seven incumbent commissioners plus Chuck Omvig.

Hawkins’ move to modify the original motion of 16 applicants to his selection of eight prompted Councilman Bruce Peters to accuse Hawkins of handpicking commission members.

The Charter Commission is a group that can wield its power to determine the structure of the city’s operation, as the previous commission did when it spearheaded major revisions in the city’s charter or “constitution” in the early 1990s. The commission can make a recommendation to the council to change the charter, but if the council says no, the commission can put its proposals on the ballot for voters to decide.

That’s what happened in 1991, when voters overwhelmingly supported all seven issues proposed by the charter commission. The number of council seats was reduced from nine to the current five. The day-to-day management of the city’s policy and budget flipped from the council to the city administrator. The council was removed from personnel decisions, including the hiring and firing of city employees, with the exception of the city administrator and city attorney, and prohibited from giving orders to employees.

A few years after the change in the operation of the city, the charter commission faded into dormancy until it was reinstated in March 2018. The council received 19 applicants for 15 slots and submitted the entire list to the chief judge of the Fifth Judicial District, who chose 15 members to serve with four alternates. Although commissioners would serve four-year terms, initially half were appointed to two-year terms to prevent the possibility of a complete revamp of the group every four years.

When the two-year terms ended on March 16, the city, following its policy, asked the incumbent commissioners if they wished to continue their service and advertised for other citizens interested in serving. Seven of the eight incumbents expressed an interest, as did nine other citizens.

Incumbents on this list were Conrad Anderson, Terry D. Anderson, Michael Katzenmeyer, John Korsmo, Alice M. Maday, Dale Martens and Kenneth Reiman. Gene Tonne, who also had served a two-year term, opted not to re-apply.

New applicants were Barry Altman, Robynn Buhmann, Jon Davis, Bruce Goraczkowski, James R. Maynard II, Michele Miller, Chuck Omvig, Sharon Scheff and Ed Willett.

Charter commission members appointed in 2018 and midway through their four-year terms are Michael Edman, Tom Izen, Nikki Johnson, Thomas J. Lytle, Sara Pierce, Spencer Seibert and Colby Whitmore.

Council members received the agenda for the April 27 meeting almost five days prior to the meeting, so some were surprised at Hawkins’ motion to modify the motion, without any prior notification, to submit his recommendations instead of the entire list of applications.

Hawkins defended his actions, saying he didn’t think the judge was equipped to make the decision without more information, and that it was the council’s “duty to come up with a list to give to the judge.”

“We all know, like our council, they (charter commission) have had some of their own dysfunctions, but I don’t think that’s a reason to try and remake the council and leave it up to the judge,” he said.

Hawkins later said he thought it would be unfair to just kick people off the commission without warning if those members wanted to continue their service and that the mayor, Debbie Foster, did not share with him her reasoning to submit the entire list without giving preference to incumbents.

“The only logical reason is that she wants to remake the charter commission with members who she and some of her friends on the commission desire by hoping the judge would pick the ‘right’ ones. I can think of no other reason,” he said. “Unless she can come up with a logical explanation other than suggested, she should apologize to the incumbents on the commission.”

Foster defended her proposal to submit the entire list, saying all 16 applicants are qualified.

“When all applicants are equal, it is in the best interest of a city to ask an honorable judge to make the decision,” she said. “I’m once again confident, if the judge preferred the City Council to submit a list of eight appointees and eight alternates, she would request that of the council.”

She expressed her gratitude for all the applicants for their willingness to serve the community.

When asked for comment later, Ruth Cyphers, who backed Hawkins’ motion, said she was concerned about the list of individuals in consideration for the charter commission. She questioned the need to submit such a lengthy list and felt incumbents should be given priority.

“I was very concerned that the list, presented in the agenda, was not vetted properly,” she said. “There were individuals on this list, in my opinion, that have not acted professionally nor in the best interest of our city. I had fully intended to bring my concerns to the council, however Councilor Hawkins entered the motion that essentially eliminated my concerns.”

Councilman Bruce Peters disagreed with Hawkins’ motion to modify the original list.

“I don’t like Councilor Hawkins handpicking,” he said, later voting against the motion.

Peters later said he based his vote on other criteria as well. Hawkins’ unanticipated motion went against the council members’ agreement at a February workshop, a pact where they agreed there would be no more blindsiding of city staff or council members by bringing motions without prior knowledge.

“We had the opportunity to read this item in advance, and no one made any mention of concerns about how it was written or what it contained,” Peters said. “We are given the agendas in advance so if there are concerns, we can address them with city staff, propose changes or have the rationale explained to our satisfaction prior to the council meetings.”

Peters mentioned that some of the new applicants on the list had been openly critical of prior actions of the council.

“I considered this to be a good thing. Constructive criticism is healthy and contributes to a better end result than having a group with a single mindset that is likely to ‘rubber stamp’ what some vocal members might want,” he said.

He said the instance could discourage other qualified citizens from volunteering to serve on the city’s advisory boards and commissions.

“I cannot fathom how the three that voted for the change could in any way view this as a positive for our city,” he said.

Wayne Hasek also voted against Hawkins’ motion.

“We have a lot of new people that want to get involved, and I think it’s time for them to be heard,” he said. “I know there was some dysfunction (on the commission), and I think it’s time to move on. It was time to get some new people involved.”

Randy Lubenow, who seconded Hawkins’ motion to modify the list and voted with the majority, did not respond to requests for comment.