Commission and Board Recommendations Adopted
May 19, 2009 12:09 - 1 Comment
Last night the >Mayor and Council unanimously voted to adopt the the recommendations of the Boards and Commissions Workgroup.
The Work Group, under the leadership of Councilmember Phyllis Marcuccio and comprised of members and chairs of boards & commissions, former elected officials, and interested citizens, met on December 10, 2008, and January 21 and February 25, 2009. At the last meeting, the group endorsed these recommendations, but I was unable to attend.
Here’s the rundown on the recommendations:
Recruitment of members
#1 Recommend placing persons seeking reappointment to a City Board or Commission into the same pool as people seeking appointment for the first time to begin on September 1, 2009, which should negate the need for term limits.
#2 Recommend that persons seeking reappointment respond to some questions in writing about why they are seeking reappointment
Appointment Process
#1 Recommend interviewing candidates for the Commissions dictated by State Article 66-B (Planning Commission, Historic District Commission, and the Board of Appeals)
NOTE: If desired, a quorum of the Mayor and Council can meet in Executive Session as a group to interview candidates for any Board or Commission (per the City Attorney’s Office).
Since the meeting, Joe Jordan has asked me whether the Mayor and Council discussed the justification for Executive Session interviews under the Open Meeting Act last night. They did not. The Work Group did discuss a volunteer coming forward and having to be interviewed by the mayor and council with an audience and televised. We suggested the Mayor and Council explore the option of a special session for interviews to avoid this scenario if more two councilmembers wanted to interview at the same time.
#2 Recommend providing for some period of time (minimum of three weeks) between notification by the Mayor as to plans to make an appointment so that the other members of the Mayor and Council can have some time to contact applicants (Example: In the beginning of January, the Mayor would notify the other members of the Mayor and Council about the appointments and reappointments planned for February)
Length of terms
Recommend a three-year term for all of the Boards and Commissions with the exception of the following:
• The Planning Commission (5 years as dictated by State Article 66-B)
• Board of Supervisors of Elections (recommend 4 years to correspond with at least two City elections – the term is currently four years)
• Compensation Commission (recommend 4 years to correspond with at least two City elections – the term is currently six years)
Interaction with the Mayor and Council
#1 Recommend reinstituting the Mayor and Council liaison system
My personal opinion: In some instances the liaison system did not work because the councilmember did not report back to the Mayor and other councilmembers. We are all aware of time limitations, so at least one liason is better than none. Occasionally inviting the mayor and councilmembers to attend a meeting, individually or in pairs, for a briefing has worked well for my Human Service Advisory Commission. As a chair, I would choose to write to them all directly with concerns or requests rather than approaching one. I’m not sure a liason will improve communication if information is not shared among the Mayor and Council.
#2 Recommend reinstituting regular meetings with each Board or Commission or, at a minimum, with the chairs
Other
#1 Recommend broadening and or strengthening advertising opportunities to serve on Boards and Commissions to include the Rockville Gazette, Rockville Reports, TRC 11, and the City’s website.
#2 Recommend that, when a person is being appointed to fill an unexpired term within six months of the term’s expiration, the appointment should be made for the full term.
The briefing document given to the Mayor and Council from Claire Funkhouser, City Clerk, explains:
… some changes to the City Code may need to be enacted if there are changes to the length of membership terms. The “Policies and Procedures Handbook” given to every new member of a City board or commission would have to be revised to take into account any changes. A training session for both members and staff liaisons would also need to be scheduled to apprise everyone of any changes.
So there is still work to be done to iron out the process.
Follow on Twitter
I agree with the recommendations of the taskforce but I’d like to add a couple others: >
1. Require that terms be staggered on each board or commission. If the terms for a majority of the group expire at the same time, it really disrupts the momentum of the board because they lose that memory and experience all at once. If they’re adopting three years terms, they should also adopt a policy that the terms of a third of the board expire each year. This isn’t too difficult to manage. A simple database, spreadsheet, or even a list with each person’s name and the date their term expires should suffice.
2. Review the purpose and goals of each board and commission on a regular basis. With nearly two dozen boards, this would be difficult to do annually, so how about every five years? Too often in government, commissions are created and then lose focus over the years and no one is quite sure if they have any purpose. This either discourages the members (who feel they aren’t making a contribution) or they begin making up new work that’s outside their purview (and potentially getting themselves and the city in trouble). Right now there’s hardly any communication between the Mayor and Council and the boards and commissions, so unless they’re forced to conduct a review (perhaps by even meeting with them), I regret that things aren’t going to improve significantly.
Just my 2 cents.