Tribune editorial staff

Normally, we get frustrated when government stalls on an important issue at hand. For many of us - along with other taxpayers - nothing is more excruciating than watching public officials, confronted with a tough decision, continually refuse to pull the trigger and make a decision.

However, this is one of those times where the circumstances contradict our "normal" stance on an issue.

On Thursday, members of the Ironton City Council plan on making a critical decision for the city's future. The council is expected to select the man or woman who will fill the unexpired council seat previously held by new Ironton Mayor John Elam.

We want them to stall a bit. "Why?" you might ask.

The reason is simple. Such a significant decision should not be determined in a single, quick meeting. The city's own charter requires any ordinance - no matter the size or perceived importance - be read three times, without it being deemed an emergency by the majority.

If simple, every day ordinances must be read considered over three days, shouldn't the appointment of a key leadership position be given the same weight?

Our suggestion to council is this: during Thursday's special meeting, present a list of names of persons under consideration. Set a time period for public comment - whether it is a week, two, or three - and see if the voters have anything to say about the nominees.

While this would not be an election, per se, it would include the community in this important decision. At the same time, it would demonstrate that the members of city council are, in fact, listening to the people - all the people, not just ones who have privately expressed an interest in the matter.

Therefore, we urge city council to consider our suggestion. The people should choose representation. And, in extreme cases such as the unexpected vacancy, at the very least, voters should have a more direct voice in their government.