Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-14-2013 - 4ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 14, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Follow Up Discussion from January 29, 2013 Work Session on Board Protocols /Advisory Board Procedures DEPARTMENT: Board of Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): A. Excerpt from January 29, 2013 Approved Minutes B. Decision Points Sheet INFORMATION CONTACT: Clerk's Office, 245 -2130 1 PURPOSE: To consider follow up discussions as related to Board protocols and advisory board procedures. BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners discussed various topics at their January 29th work session as well as bringing up other items in the past couple of months as related to board protocols and advisory board procedures. This work session is designed to give the Board an opportunity to discuss these topics in greater detail. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends for the Board to discuss the various topics as relates to board protocols /advisory board procedures and provide direction to staff as needed. Attachment A Excerpt from approved minutes from January 29, 2013 3. Discussion of Some Board of Commissioners and Advisory Board Protocols Chair Jacobs referenced the yellow sheet (copy of 2008 Advisory Board Chairs Meeting) and the need to orient the advisory board chairs. He said this came up, in part, when Commissioner Dorosin brought up the process of how they appoint to advisory boards. He said some of the advisory boards develop the expectation that if they nominate people, it is a breach of faith if the Board does not accept the nominations. He noted an email conversation clarifying that this is not how it works. The County Commissioners are the only body that can appoint to boards. These things need to be gone over with the advisory boards and he noted the need to provide guidance to these boards on several issues, i.e. closed session meetings, and to give them an opportunity to ask questions. He is talking about meeting with advisory board chairs. Chair Jacobs said work sessions were one issue that needed clarification. He noted that at work sessions, the public cannot speak, and there is no voting, no approvals or rejections. Items may be referred to a regular meeting and that items are not added to the agenda. There is a petitioning of the board at the beginning of Board meetings. In order to put items on the agenda, they must be reviewed at agenda review and will then put on a suitable agenda or clear reason will be given if they are not added. He said that an item not added is not considered "dead" and can be brought back at a later date. This system was developed to give order to the way in which matters are put on the agenda and to prevent items from appearing on the agenda without proper vetting about what is involved. He said this process has been used a little, but not much since the new members were seated. He referenced one petition by Commissioner Pelissier to have the Chair write a letter to all the advisory board members who have finished terms. Chair Jacobs said they currently receive a letter from the clerk and it will now have the Chair's signature on it. That is an example of a petition that will be answered. Commissioner Rich asked about time frames for responding to petitions and Chair Jacobs said there are two answers; one is ASAP and the other is the staff has to respond, which may take awhile for staff to get things together sufficiently to bring it back to the agenda. In either case, an answer will be given promptly. This response will tell you that if it is going to be on an agenda or not, and if not on the agenda at the next meeting, a time frame will be given. Frank Clifton said that if a petition requires research or legal research, there will be a listing of what staff members are pursuing it or have been assigned. A sheet will be given that give a status update and where the issue is projected to be on the agenda. This is especially true when several advisory boards are involved. Some type of response about action taken is usually given within a week of the petition. Chair Jacobs addressed the question of, do we care if our advisory boards make presentations to other elected boards and John Roberts asked for a moment to look into this. Chair Jacobs addressed the question of how letters are written. He said, if you use personal stationary, you may do what you want. If county stationary is used, make it clear that it is from you and not the board, unless you are the Chair speaking on behalf of the board. John Roberts, addressing the prior question, said the general advisory board policy section 11, page 14, subsection C3 states: — Advisory Boards and any members thereof shall not (and shall not have the express or implied authority to): 1. Take positions, in their capacity as an advisory board member, on any political issue or support or oppose any candidate for public office Chair Jacobs noted that this should be part of new member orientation. K Commissioner Dorosin said that it should be made clear during orientation that they are not trying to constrain free speech. He said it should be clear that there is an absolute right to speak and identify yourself and your community activities and board memberships, but there should be a disclaimer that you are not speaking on behalf of a particular advisory board. Frank Clifton said for the newer board members that there are a couple of statutory boards that this does not apply to, i.e. Board of Health, Social Services, who have official capacity versus advisory capacity. Commissioner Rich said that often people will tell where they are from but will then designate they are speaking for themselves. She said that it is key that people be allowed to express their opinion as a citizen, not an advisory board member. Commissioner Dorosin specified that the citizen should be allowed to disclose their involvements, as it may reveal why they are knowledgeable about the issue. Commissioner McKee said the issue is not that they don't speak, but that it be specified they speak as an individual. He said he has no problem with anyone saying anything to any advisory board, provided it is not disparaging an individual or board, as long as they are speaking for themselves. He noted that to mention a planning board membership as a background statement is different than claiming to speak as a planning board member. Chair Jacobs noted that the statement on page 14 specifies "take positions within their capacity as an advisory board member." To that point, a speaker should be present not in that official position, but as an American with a right to free speech. Commissioner Price said, with regard to using stationary, members should be careful with using title of Commissioner. Commissioner Rich said that this goes back to Commissioner Dorosin's point of how someone would know about an issue if they weren't at a Commissioners' meeting. There may be an event at a Commissioner's meeting that you would not otherwise know about and the representation of yourself as a Commissioner would be relevant. Commissioner Price said that to say you are a Commissioner is different than to sign as a Commissioner. Commissioner McKee said any elected office is different than serving on an advisory board. He said the Commissioner title was earned because an election was won. The title is attached to a name, thus he is not concerned about simply signing it. He said it only identifies who you are. He said that elected officials have earned the right to use that title. Commissioner Price said that in the case of forming an opinion or judgment on an issue, they should remain neutral unless supported by full board. Chair Jacobs acknowledged that there are different views and the issue does not need to be resolved today. Commissioner Dorosin referred back to the topic of the appointment process. He noted that currently boards bring forth recommendations and they as Board of County Commissioners have freedom to accept those or choose differently. He said that his issue is, if there is a recommended candidate, does it make sense to let the board chair know that this is someone they support or have recruited. He said that the negative side of this is the idea that it is exerting undue influence. He said he is not sure this concern is legitimate, because ultimately the choice is up to the Board. He said is a heads up to the advisory boards more fair to them than for them to submit a name and the Board to put its own people on and blindside them. He said from a good government standpoint, there is a triangle of Boards, Advisory Boards, and residents that are being reached out to. He noted the interest in gender, age, race, socio- economic diversity. He said it is easier for the Board of County Commissioners to help reach the diversity goal and he would be in favor of working more closely with the advisory board chairs and having better communication. He said the other issue and concern of his is the high number of vacancies on some of these boards. He noted that there was only one recommendation for boards that had two or more vacancies. He said that he thinks the Advisory Board Chairs should be instructed to M fill those vacancies as quickly as possible. He referenced his experience of waiting a year to be placed on the Carrboro Economic Development Commission while knowing there were four vacancies. He said it wasn't a priority for the board and it turns citizens off who are interested. He said that it leads to boards that are more insular and clubby. He said he would like to encourage boards to bring forward as many applicants as possible. Chair Jacobs said he believed that if there are vacancies and there are applicants, they should be filled. He said that the better way to do it is to put boards on notice that if positions are not filled, an explanation should be given and, if needed, the Board of County Commissioners will fill them. He said this also gives the Clerk a chance to make sure applicants still reside in the county. Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker said that many times applicants apply and then some boards take time to go through the due diligence process to make sure the person can attend the meetings and has the necessary availability. She said that many persons apply for a vacancy and then sit out there for a year. Once they are approached, they may not have availability. Often when contacted, people have an obstacle preventing them from filling the position. She said there is an effort to contact applicants on a regular basis to update their status. Chair Jacobs said that it should be communicated to the board chairs, that it is important to move these candidates forward and fill vacancies. If there is a process involved, it should be communicated. If a candidate is not moved forward and a reason can't be given, the Board will step in. He said there should be parameters set, such as operating in a timely manner. He said that he knows there is not time to change policy tonight, but he wanted the issues to be raised, such as how to know candidates better. He referenced his experience in applying to serve with OWASA, when he was interviewed by then Commissioners, Moses Carey and Verla Insko. Commissioner Gordon said issues that need to be addressed should be flagged. She raised the question about elected officials serving on other boards. She quoted a stipulation from the old policies that stated "Elected officials from other jurisdictions shall not be appointed to county boards and commissions, unless specifically representing their boards in an elected capacity." She said that if it was desired that someone be on a board, a position could be created. She said that there are boards and commissions they don't take recommendations from. She said that historically the reason recommendations are taken from boards and commissions is because there was a problem of not knowing enough about the applicants on the long list of boards and commissions. The thought was to have the boards vet and recommend their own people, but those recommendations don't have to be accepted. She said the decision is, do they or do they not want recommendations from advisory boards. Her preference is to take recommendations. Commissioner McKee said that it is important that citizens are engaged and encouraged to apply to boards, even solicited to apply if it is believed that they would be good on a board. He said that what they need to be careful of, individually or collectively, is appointing people to boards to align ideology of a board or a member of a board. Commissioner Pelissier said that she believes advisory boards should be encouraged to vet people, because the Board of County Commissioners does not have the time. She said there are so many boards and that the advisory boards do a good job overall. She does not want to ask boards to say that they do not like applicants, as this will come in a letter and would be public record. Commissioner Rich asked how OWASA members were chosen. Commissioner Pelissier said that some people interview on their own. Bit that nothing stops them from calling applicants on the list. She said that calls have been made to boards, prospective members and people who might know the applicant. Commissioner Rich asked if Commissioner Pelissier had been interviewed and Commissioner Pelissier said no. She said she received a questionnaire. Commissioner Gordon said the decision had been made to go to an extensive questionnaire. She said there was a history to this, but it was too late to go over it at this time. DRAFT Attachment B Decision Points for BOCC: 1. Follow up to Petition by BOCC Member: Review and consider a request that the Board moves forward with establishing a new and thorough application /process for prospective appointees for boards with fiduciary or specific statutory responsibilities ( OWASA, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, E &R Board, ABC Board). Background: The response to this petition from the Chair/Vice Chair at agenda review was- Response - A) The Board will move forward with establishing a new, specific, and thorough application process for prospective appointees to four boards: OWASA, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, E &R Board. Chair Jacobs suggested including ABC Board, as we had previously discussed vetting applicants for boards with fiduciary responsibilities. Consult County Attorney on proposed verbiage for applications for the aforementioned advisory boards, B) Consider whether to return to matter of interviewing, reviewing, and promoting specific board applicants at a future work session, to be scheduled. The Attorney has asked for feedback from Board members as to questions and concerns they would like addressed in a revised application but as of yet, he has not received any feedback. Decision Point. Does the Board want to move forward with a revised application for these particular boards mentioned above, and if so, can the board provide feedback /questions to the County Attorney in order to move the process forward? • Does the Board want to stay with the current process? 2. Process for Commissioners to "vet" Board Appointments -for certain boards with fiduciary or statutory responsibilities, such as the ABC Board, OWASA, E &R Board, Planning and Board of Adjustment. Decision Point. Does the Board want to develop a process for Commissioners to vet board appointments to these particular boards (and others as applicable)? Are there criteria to be applied or a process for vetting appointments (such as interviews, questions on a revised application, committee review, etc.)? Or will the application process suggested in Item #1 cover this item? 7 3. How should Commissioners participate, if at all, in the nominating and selection process of prospective applicants to their advisory boards? Background: Currently, most boards with the exception of the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, OWASA, E &R Board and ABC Board usually make recommendations for new members since many boards go through a process of engaging prospective members before making recommendations: inviting applicants to meetings, sessions to let individuals ask questions, and letting staff orient potential new members to time commitments of a particular board, by- laws, goals, etc. Decision Point: Does the Board want to proceed with a process for allowing Commissioners to participate in the nominating process and selection process of prospective applicants to its advisory boards? If so, what criteria are to be applied? Does the board want to retain its current process for appointing members to its advisory boards? 3. Does the Board want to establish a procedure whereby Orange County appointees /representatives to outside boards (such as the Chapel Hill Planning Board, etc.) communicate back to the Board on a regular basis? Background: Currently there is not a process in place for Orange County representatives to such bodies as town advisory boards to report back to the Board. Decision Points: • Does the Board want to formalize a process for this type of communication to occur? • Are there any criteria to be applied? (Report in writing annually, attend BOCC retreat to report verbally, etc.) 4. Letters from the Chair of the BOCC representing the position of the entire board. Decision Points: The Chair recommends that, unless extraordinary circumstances arise, any such letter be circulated a day prior to transmittal to allow for comment from interested Commissioners. Concerns and comments may be shared with the Chair for possible incorporation into the letter.