Haymarket Town Council member Susan Edwards resigned from the council and her spot on the Architectural Review Board last week, citing problems with the direction of the town.

According to Haymarket Mayor Pamela Stutz, Edwards offered to rescind her resignation within days of her announcement but a new state law requires the seat to be filled by appointment; the council cannot simply reject her resignation request

The chief problem with Edwards attempting to rejoin is that she timed her resignation "effective immediately" in a letter submitted to town officials on Nov. 10 and marked for Nov. 8.

Stutz said town attorney John Bennett informed her that because of a law passed by the General Assembly, vacancies to local government posts can be filled in the short term by appointment, but then must be voted on by the citizens during the next general election. The next general election in Prince William County falls on Nov. 8, 2011.

Any town resident can run in that election and any can apply to be appointed to the council to fill a vacancy. Council members said during a continuation meeting Tuesday night that they have until Nov. 25 to declare the vacancy with the county clerk's office and 45 days from the receipt of resignation to fill the spot via appointment.

The winner of the Nov. 8, 2011 election would only be elected to serve out the remainder of the original term, which is set to expire in June 2012. The next scheduled general election for Haymarket Town Council is in May 2012.

There is precedent for the town rejecting resignations. Two years ago, Council member Bob Weir offered to quit. He ultimately stayed on and won re-election twice afterward.

"(This is) different only because as far as I'm concerned, the rules have changed because of the election process," said Stutz.

In her letter last week, Edwards wrote, "Over the last several weeks several things have transpired that have made it clear to me that I can no longer serve on this Council. I feel that the sitting Council is taking the Town in a direction that I cannot support."

Edwards, first elected to the council in 2008 and re-elected this year, went on to write, "This decision was not easy for me, however, I have strong feelings that I cannot and will not be associated with the way this Town is 'moving on'. I wish you much luck in the future."

Edwards was unavailable for comment Monday, and was not present during the council's executive session on Tuesday. Stutz, an Edwards ally on the council, said that she had talked to Edwards and that the decision was in large part due to a perceived lack of focus by the council in handling issues.

"I think that the hard part right now is that what's happening is we made several commitments months ago about the direction of the town," said Stutz, adding that the council is "going here, here, here and here" with several items instead of concentrating on a select few.

Stutz mentioned a proposed boundary line adjustment, potential demolition of two historic buildings, the debate over bringing in a temporary town planner and the move of staff from the Harrover property on the east side of town back to the Town Center property while the Town Center remains listed for sale, as some of the many issues rousing debate among council members.

"We are not concentrating on taking care of what we set out to do," said Stutz.

Stutz, Edwards and Councilmember Mary Lou Scarborough all recused themselves from a vote on the status of the food pantry located at Harrover during the Nov. 1 council meeting. The three of them sit on the pantry's board of directors and because it is not an official function of the town, that created a potential conflict of interest.

Speaking about the pantry workers, vice mayor John Cole said, "Since they were moving the staff back in there, they had to find a place to go. They wanted to know if they could stay there longer in that area."
Cole and council members Weir, Milt Kenworthy and Jay Tobias voted to give them until Jan. 15 to figure out where to move.

According to Cole, "we're facing some problems and there ares different opinions about what we should do next, and one of them would be the demolition of the structures in the middle of town there."
Those structures include the Red Rooster and Gray House, which are both dilapidated but could be repaired, according to Stutz.

"I think that's the frustration that a lot of people feel," said Stutz. She said the historic nature of the buildings needs to be taken into consideration before they could be torn down, but she also acknowledged the town is short on money to fix them, which is why she hopes to find an outside investor to lease and repair the buildings.

"If you do it, what are you doing after you've done it?" she said, regarding demolition. "If you take away all of that from the town, what is your proposed plan for the town? What does it look like? I can't seem to get that answer."

Cole said, "I think some of the council members just want to move quickly on some decisions that other council members think there's cost involved and we don't have to move as fast."

As for moving staff back to Town Hall, "it was just a hard decision, because when you move the staff back in there, it kind of looks like we're putting some hard stakes down in that building," said Cole. "That land and all that is still up for sale."