The Wallowa Mountains rise in the background in this view from Baker City that takes in the Baker Tower, at right, and Baker City Hall, left.

BAKER CITY — The three remaining Baker City councilors all resigned Wednesday, Sept. 27, after Baker County Circuit Court Judge Matt Shirtcliff ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Mayor Beverly Calder and the city council, deciding that the council requires a quorum of at least four members to fill vacancies.

The plaintiffs advocated for the city to schedule a special election to allow city voters to fill the vacancies.

But by resigning, Calder and councilors Ray Duman and Jason Spriet apparently have triggered a state law which states that when a city council has no members, county commissioners will appoint enough councilors to constitute a quorum — four in Baker City’s case — and then those four will fill the three remaining vacancies.

Shirtcliff’s ruling meant that the council, with three members, couldn’t have filled any vacancies or taken other actions. Another option, and one the plaintiffs in the lawsuit called for, was for the city to call for a special election to fill the vacancies. But now all the councilors have resigned, leaving the state law giving the appointment authority to the three county commissioners the remaining option.

Commissioners are Shane Alderson, Christina Witham and Bruce Nichols.

Duman was the first to resign, followed by Spriet, then Calder. All three cited the state law, saying they preferred to have commissioners fill four vacancies, a faster option than having a special election, which likely couldn’t have happened for at least three months.

“Effective immediately, I resign my position as Baker City Councilor,” Duman wrote in an email sent to the city. “The recent court decision has forced this action to provide continuation of city governance. ORS 221.160 allows Baker County Commission to appoint a quorum for this City, so we may be able move this City forward without waiting for a special election five months from now, not to mention additional costs to this City. I do not envy the County Commission for what they are required to do, but I trust their judgement and this City will survive.”

Duman is referring to a state law — ORS 221.160(2), which states that when a city council has no members, the county commissioners can appoint enough councilors to constitute a quorum.

“The sole reason for my resignation is to do what I believe is the best for Baker City as the current council is unable to do business with only 3 members,” Spriet wrote in his resignation letter. “The ruling in circuit court today forces the city to spend significant time and funding on a special election or have no leadership on council, and the city cannot afford either.”

Calder’s resignation also renders moot a campaign to recall her. Bryan Dalke of Baker City filed the recall petition on Sept. 14 and has been gathering signatures to force a recall election.

“I offer my resignation with a heavy heart and the understanding that this is the only productive option that will serve the best interests of the community that I love and have had the privilege to serve,” she wrote in her resignation letter.

The lawsuit and judge’s decision

Three city residents filed the lawsuit Sept. 12. Shirtcliff issued a temporary restraining order on that day blocking the council from taking any action. He then heard oral arguments from attorneys on Sept. 21. The judge issued his decision Wednesday, Sept. 27.

The plaintiffs — Jeffrey Blake, Joshua Connor and Kathrine Burnett — argued that because the city charter in two sections states a quorum is required to conduct any business, when the council lacks a quorum, as it does now, the only remedy is to schedule a special election to allow voters to fill the vacancies.

The city recorder estimates that such an election wouldn’t be possible until February 2024 at the soonest.

The council briefly had seven members in early August. Councilor Dean Guyer resigned in early August, and Boston Colton resigned Aug. 25, leaving the council with a quorum of five.

Then, on Sept. 6, councilors Nathan Hodgdon and Johnny Waggoner Sr. simultaneously resigned, leaving the council with three members. Hodgdon has said he resigned to force the city to schedule a special election. He said he doesn’t think three councilors should be able to appoint four new members, and that in such a situation, with more than half the council seats vacant, city voters should decide who fills the vacancies.

In his written decision, Shirtcliff wrote that he “must interpret the charter as a whole.”

The crux of the legal argument involves multiple sections of the city’s 1952 charter, including Sections 15, 17 and 20.

Sections 17 and 20 both state that a quorum — at least four councilors, as a full council has seven members — must be present for the council to conduct business.

Section 15, which deals specifically with filling vacancies on the council, reads: “A vacancy in the council shall be filled by appointment by a majority of the council.”

Section 15 doesn’t include the word quorum.

In his written decision, Shirtcliff cites both Sections 20 and 17.

He notes that the defendants argue that the language in Section 15 — “a majority of the council” but without the word quorum — “overrides the general rule that a quorum of at least four members is required.”

The judge disagreed with that interpretation.

He wrote that “Section 15 does not remove the quorum requirement, and the court will not read into the section language that is not inserted.”

“Reading the provisions together, there must first be a quorum to do business and, in the case of filling a vacancy, appointment shall be made by a majority of the council. This indicates that a majority of a quorum may be different than a majority of the council.”

Shirtcliff addresses the defendants’ contention that the authors of the charter, by omitting the word “quorum” from Section 15, intended that the specific act of filling a vacancy did not require a quorum. The judge disagreed.

“This violates standard rules of charter and statutory construction and is in direction violation of Section 20 labeled “Vote Required” which requires a majority of a quorum for any matter before the council,” Shirtcliff wrote.

The judge also wrote that had the charter’s authors intended that the council could fill vacancies even when lacking a quorum, “the drafters could have easily stated, such. Reading the charter as a whole, there is more support for the proposition that ‘a majority of the council’ does not excuse the quorum requirement.”

The judge wrote later in his ruling: “The drafters clearly intended for matters like the appointment of vacancies and the termination of a city manager to require a majority of the council which, in most situations, will require a higher vote count than a majority of a quorum.”

Shirtcliff also noted that other sections of the charter require that at least five councilors approve the hiring or firing of city employees when a city manager pro tem (interim) is overseeing the city’s operations.