At a special portion of the July 1 meeting, the Clawson City Council conducted interviews and a ranked‑choice selection process to fill a council vacancy with a term expiring Nov. 17, 2025. City Clerk Michelle reported that 10 applications were received and four candidates were interviewed at a special meeting: Alexander Aprilli, Andrea Lalonde, Lauren Matar and Richard Scott.

Councilors agreed to use a ranked selection method in public discussion. After members gave rankings, the clerk tallied first‑choice votes and announced Richard Scott had the most first‑place selections; the clerk stated that produced a majority selection on first preferences.

Later, council discussion turned to Section 4.31 of the city charter related to persons “in default” who may be ineligible for appointment. A council member said Michelle had informed the council that a member of the candidate pool was “in default and remains in default.” The city clerk reported a past‑due water bill and that a payment made June 30 did not clear the balance; she said the past‑due amount had been approximately $245 and that the account remained in arrears.

Councilors debated what the charter term “default” legally requires, with some members saying default is commonly the transfer of unpaid charges to the tax roll and others saying the charter’s language must be followed strictly. The clerk noted that petition affidavits for candidates require a statement about not being in default.

Councilor Moffitt made a motion, seconded and supported, that the council not proceed with an appointment that evening and instead request a legal opinion that defines “default” in the charter and reviews relevant city billing practices and case law. The motion passed 3–1 (Mayor Millan yes; Mayor Pro Tem Moffitt no; Councilor Shepherd yes; Councilor Anderson yes). The city attorney said she will review case law and the billing records and provide an opinion to council.

The clerk had already provided the application and interview timeline: applications were due June 12, 2025; four finalists were interviewed at a special meeting on the prior day, and tonight’s determination was the council's planned decision point. Because the council voted to pause the appointment, no final appointment was completed on July 1 and the vacancy remains open pending the attorney’s opinion or further council action.