The timing of Bill Strom's announcement last week that he was stepping down from the Chapel Hill Town Council raised some eyebrows around here.

Strom's possible departure had been rumored ever since he put his house up for sale in May. He told a reporter at the time that he and his wife were just downsizing, but last week he said in his announcement that he was resigning from the council in order to pursue opportunities elsewhere. His resignation took effect Saturday.

Under election rules, had he resigned just a few weeks earlier -- by July 14, three days before the close of candidate filing period for the November election -- his open seat on the council would have been included on the ballot on Election Day. The voters would have elected his replacement.

Because he resigned after that deadline, though, it's up to the Town Council to appoint a replacement to fill out the remaining two years of his term.

Strom hasn't said when made his decision or -- if, as some presume, he made it some time ago -- why he didn't announce it until last week. The e-mailed announcement of his resignation made no mention of that question, and as of Friday phone calls and e-mails seeking comment hadn't been returned.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of an explanation from the source, speculation -- some of it harsh -- has filled the void. Town volunteer Teressa Jiminez wrote that "the timing of this announcement comes across as sneaky and perhaps circumspect." Augustus Cho, who is running for mayor, blasted the decision; denying voters the opportunity to select Strom's successor, Cho said, was "insulting to the citizens' intelligence and values."

Since we don't know why Strom resigned when he did, we'll leave that question alone. Suffice to say it would be much preferable for the voters to elect their own choice to represent them from that seat for the next two years.

The good news is that the Town Council can still make that happen. The council has to appoint his successor, but it doesn't have to do so within any particular time frame. The council is on break until Sept. 14, and after that it has to allow a certain window of time for applications to be accepted, so the earliest it could appoint a replacement would be the end of September, barely a month before the election.

There's no reason to rush to appoint a new council member before Election Day. Eight candidates are in the running for four open seats, not counting Strom's.

The council could best respect the electorate by simply declining to make an appointment until after the election, and then appointing the fifth-place vote-getter to Strom's vacant seat.

It's not perfect, but it's about as close as we can get to letting voters make the call.

True, there might conceivably be one or two people who would have run for Town Council if they had known before the filing period ended that five seats, not four, were going to be open. But that what-if isn't compelling enough to deny the voters their choice.

Another possible hitch could arise if the fifth-place vote-getter doesn't apply for the seat. The council can only appoint someone who has applied to fill the vacancy. But candidate Penny Rich, for example, has already said she won't apply. What if she finishes fifth?

Well, that would be a bit sticky, but, again, it's not so problematic that it should preclude the council from waiting until after the election.

If there is a legal and responsible way to allow the voters to choose all, and not just some, of their Town Council members, that's the way to go. Fortunately, there is.

We've told you where we stand on this issue. Now we want to know what you think. Send a comment of 75 words or less, with the subject line "Agree or Disagree" to editor@nando.com. We'll print your responses here next week. Thanks.