Councillor Tania Fernandes Anderson, who was indicted last year on charges that she received $7,000 from city coffers through an unlawful scheme involving one of her staff members, said last week that she intends to resign her District 7 seat as part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors.

It’s about time. As The Reporter editorialized last December, Fernandes Anderson should have resigned in the immediate aftermath of her arrest and arraignment. While she’s entitled to due process like any other person accused of fraud or theft, the councillor should have vacated her seat to allow for new leadership to step in and chart a fresh course for the Roxbury-Dorchester seat that she has represented since 2021.

As expressed in this space at the time: “Elected officials should hold themselves to a higher standard and so should we. They’ve been entrusted with our money and the expectation that they will make ethical and transparent decisions on how to spend it. In the case of this councillor, it appears that that trust was misplaced.”

But Fernandes Anderson did not resign last year. Had she heeded the counsel of Mayor Wu and Council President Ruthzee Louijeune at the time, District 7 would already have selected a new leader in time for budget season, perhaps the council’s most important duty. Instead, District 7’s constituents are stuck in limbo with a lame-duck councillor who has apparently agreed to leave but has been elusive about when that will actually happen.

As a result, there’s now a debate afoot about whether she should wait until May 8— the date by which she can resign without triggering a special election.

Reluctantly, we agree with those who say that Fernandes Anderson might as well hold off on submitting her formal resignation for a few more weeks to spare the city the cost and duplication of an election that will be held in a few months on its normal schedule anyway.

Secretary of State William Galvin, who, like many others, opposes a special election in this instance, estimates that a summertime special would cost the city roughly $200,000. And, he pointed out, it would come after he had appointed a “receiver” to monitor the city’s Election Dept after a series of mistakes and communication lapses last November inconvenienced voters.

The residents in District 7 will need to rely on at-large delegates and neighboring district councillors to watch out for their interests during this budget season anyway, since there’s no way a replacement for Fernandes Anderson can be chosen in time for votes that will impact the FY26 ledger.

This is yet another reason why constituents should be outraged by her poor leadership. Not only did Fernandes Anderson abuse their trust by purloining funds that weren’t hers to seek, but she also has left them without direct representation as other leaders make pivotal decisions about how the city spends taxpayer dollars.

As a field of candidates continues to take shape to replace her, Fernandes Anderson should step to the side and let her would-be replacements openly debate and discuss the priorities they would push once elected. And her colleagues can pick up the slack in the meantime on time-sensitive constituent complaints.

For all that, it serves little to no purpose to select a replacement who will have to be re-elected within just a matter of weeks after being seated in a special election. At a time when the city is opting to leave unfilled as many as 2,000 vacant jobs to cut costs in the face of a hostile federal government, let’s keep things consistent when it comes to a job that should be filled by the voters after a thorough campaign season this fall.