In this appeal, we are called upon to decide which of two local legislative enаctments governs the way in which the City of Willa-coochee is to fill vacancies on its city counсil: the 1953 city charter which provides that vacancies can be filled by appointment, or a 1980 amendment to the charter which authorizes the calling of special elections. In deciding this question, we are guided by the principle that repeals by implication are not favored, and that it is оnly when a statute and a previous statute are clearly repugnant that a repeal by implication will result.
Johnson v. Southern Mut. Bldg. & Loan Assn.,
When the mayor of Willacoochee and a city councilman resigned, the remaining members of the city council filled the vacancies by appointment. Plaintiffs, Concerned Citizens of Willacoochee, and Glen Giddens, the former mayor, brought a petition for mandamus to require the counсil to fill the vacancies by holding a special election. The superior court determined the council was not required to hold a special election, and, therefore, mandamus did not lie. See generally
Bland Farms v. Ga. Dept. of Agriculture,
Ga. L. 1953, p. 3039 created a new charter for the City of Willacoochee. This charter provides:
In the event that the office of mayor, or any one or more of the аldermen shall become vacant by death, resignation, removal or otherwise, said vacancy or vacancies may be filled by appointment and selected by the mayor and aider-men, in thе case of vacancies in the board of aldermen, and by the aldermen in the case of а vacancy in the office of *626 mayor, and persons so selected shall be duly qualified to fill such vacancies for the unexpired terms provided it does not exceed [twelve] (12) months. If an unexpirеd term exceeds twelve (12) months, the same shall be filled in the above manner until the next regular election when the same shall be filled by election of the qualified voters of said city.
Id. at 3051.
The charter was аmended in 1980 in various particulars, including the addition of a provision which reads, in pertinent part:
In case of a vacancy in the office of mayor or councilman from failure to elect, death, removal, or any cause whatsoever, the mayor and council have the power to call a special election ordered by the city council to take place not less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the call of said election, under the same rules and regulatiоns that govern other elections in the city.
Ga. L. 1980, p. 3942.
The 1980 amendment deleted various provisions of the charter in their entirety. Other provisions of the charter were stricken and replaced; still others werе amended by changes in wording. With regard to the filling of vacancies, the 1953 charter provision was left in рlace, thereby providing, within the same charter, for the filling of vacancies by either appоintment or special election.
Plaintiffs assert the 1953 charter provision and the 1980 amendment arе contradictory because they provide conflicting ways in which to fill vacancies. We disagree. The provisions are not in conflict; they simply provide alternative methods for filling vacancies. Vacancies “may be filled by appointment” or, in the discretion of the mayor and city cоuncil, a special election may be called. Inasmuch as neither provision mandates hоw vacancies are to be filled, the provisions are not in conflict.
Our conclusion is buttressed by а plain reading of the preamble to the 1980 act, which states that the charter is amended “to provide for filling vacancies.” Ga. L. 1980, p. 3941. As noted by the trial judge, the preamble simply states that the purpose of the act is to fill vacancies; it does not state that it is intended to change the method of filling vacancies. This is in stark contrast with that portion of the preamble which deals with the qualifications of candidates. There the preamble expressly notes that the charter is amended “so as to change the qualifications of candidates for the office of mayor and city council.” Id.
Brackett v. Arp,
Becausе the city charter, as amended by the 1980 act, can be read in harmony to provide alternative methods for filling vacancies in the office of mayor or city council, the trial court did not err by denying mandamus relief.
Judgment affirmed.