Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-10-2015 APPROVED 3/17/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 10, 2015 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. He asked for a moment of silence in honor of Dean Smith. 1. Discussion Reqardinq Potential Requirement that Contractors Doinq Business with Oranqe County Pay Employees a Livinq Waqe John Roberts reviewed the following background information and issues for consideration: BACKGROUND: At the December 9, 2014 meeting the Board adopted a motion to direct the attorney to "come back with an explicit policy for when and under what circumstances the board of commissioners can, might, and cannot require vendors or contractors to pay a living wage." In 2013 the North Carolina General Assembly limited the authority of counties and cities by amending §153A-449, which authorizes contracting with private contractors, to include a new sentence, "A county may not require a private contractor under this section to abide by any restriction that the county could not impose on all employers in the county, such as paying minimum wage or providing paid sick leave to its employees, as a condition of bidding on a contract." This language limits the County's authority to contractually require a living wage to those contracts for which the County does not solicit bids. A contractual living wage requirement could therefore only apply to construction contracts below $30,000, purchases of supplies and apparatus below $30,000, and service contracts in any amount so long as the County did not choose to solicit bids. Proposed policy: It is the policy of Orange County that vendors who enter contracts with Orange County must pay their employees a living wage. This policy shall not apply to contracts in the formal and informal bidding ranges or to any other contract on which the county solicits bids. This policy may be adopted as a standalone policy, as part of the budget ordinance, or as part of the general ordinances. Issues for Consideration 1. What is the living wage? Is it what it costs to live in the county or the state? With or without benefits? 2. Do we require the equivalent of an Orange County living wage when both the vendor and the vendor's employees live outside the county? Outside the state? 3. Do we require the vendor pay all of its employees a living wage or just those assigned to the contract project? 4. Vendors can avoid this requirement by designating workers as subcontractors. Do we require vendors to pay their subcontractors a living wage? Require vendors to require subcontractors to pay their employees a living wage? 5. How do we verify and enforce the requirement(s)? Audits? Such a policy must be enforced because it likely creates third party beneficiaries who could have grounds to sue Orange County for its failure to enforce the provisions. 6. Is this policy to apply to contracts within a designated range of amounts to all vendors or just those with more than a designated number of employees? 7. Some sole source vendors are likely to refuse to sign such a contract. Examples include Time Warner, MuniCode, and Apple. How should this be addressed? John Roberts said he does not believe the state statute applies to all contracts, but it seems to limit the authority to contracts that require bidding. He said it is fine for the Board to adopt a living wage policy as long as there are limits. He said, since bidding is never required for service contracts, it may be a good idea to set a limit. He noted that Asheville has a limit of $90,000 on service contracts, and the policy does not apply to anything above that, which allows bidding for larger contracts. He said Durham and Asheville require this by ordinance, and there are benefits and downsides to this. He suggested that a policy may be the better way to do this. Bonnie Hammersley said she has had previous experience with this in Dane County, where this was done by ordinance for human services contracts. She said all bids provided terms requiring contractors to provide a living wage for their workers. She said there was also no law like the one recently passed in North Carolina, and this is why this could be done. She said there were no increased costs or decreased competition as a result of this. Chair McKee thanked her for this input. Commissioner porosin asked John Roberts if he is recommending that this be a term of the contract, rather than an ordinance. John Roberts said this was initially suggested as a policy stating that the Board only works with contractors who pay a living wage. He believes this can be addressed by putting a clause in each contract for the designated amounts. He said if the contractor does not follow this, it is a breach of contract. He suggested that the Board also give some discretion to the manager to bypass it when necessary. He gave an example in which Apple was the sole source of a needed information technology service. Commissioner porosin asked if John Roberts thinks it would be easier to enforce this if it is in a contract. John Roberts said yes. He said these will be small contracts, and many could go to small claims court or district court to have a dispute resolved. He believes this is easier than going to superior court for an ordinance violation. Commissioner porosin said if it makes more sense to have it in a contract, a minimum damage clause, such as a liquidated damages clause, could be included. John Roberts said there is case law stating that you cannot have a liquidated damages clause that looks like a punishment. He said it has to have some sort of rational relationship to the actual damages. Commissioner Rich asked how the County would find out if someone is not living up to the contract. John Roberts said the County can require auditing of the company's records, or an appeals process can be provided for workers. Bonnie Hammersley said Dane County held back a percentage of the contract until the contractor turned in their time records. Commissioner Rich asked if Bonnie Hammersley had seen companies who did not play by the rules. Bonnie Hammersley said there were a couple of times when funds were held back. She said there were sometimes challenges when working with subcontractors. Commissioner Price said the goal is to make sure employees are getting paid a living wage, and to make sure the County is dealing with companies that treat their employees properly. She asked what happens if the County signs a contract, and the company pays a living wage here, but then pays less in other locations. John Roberts said even if the County adopted an ordinance, it would only be applicable in Orange County. Commissioner Price asked if there is a way to find out what contractors pay their employees on other jobs. John Roberts said you can ask, but many contractors will not answer. Commissioner Price asked what the minimum would be. Chair McKee said the minimum would be $12.76. Commissioner Jacobs said this is adjusted every year in the budget process, so it would presumably go up. Commissioner Jacobs said he feels that the questions on the second page are interesting, and he would still like to get answers in writing from the staff. He said this information can be gathered from other jurisdictions and through research. He said he would like a list of the pros and cons of a policy versus a contract or an ordinance. He is not confident that he has sufficient information to answer these very good questions. Commissioner Price said the living wage in this area may be $12.76, but this is different in other locations. She said this is worth investigating. Chair McKee asked if this would fall under the same category as the question of controlling jobs outside of the County's jurisdiction. John Roberts said the living wage would be tied to the work being done in Orange County for Orange County. Commissioner porosin said he would be happy to get more answers to some of these questions, but he feels the County should require that workers here are paid the living wage that Orange County has set. Commissioner porosin said these are contracts that do not have to be bid on so there is much more flexibility in who is chosen. He said the County can choose companies that represent their interests, and the living wage is one of those criteria. He asked if there are any other jurisdictions that have done this, other than Asheville and Durham. Bonnie Hammersley said the City of Durham, Durham County, and Asheville were the three areas listed in North Carolina. Commissioner Rich said it does send a message that the County expects employers who work with them to pay a living wage. She said some of the questions do need to be answered. She questioned whether Commission Dorosin wants this to be a policy or an ordinance. Commissioner porosin said he wants whichever of these options will be most easily enforced and effectively defended in court. Commissioner Rich asked if the County has received a letter from Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) stating that they agree to pay a living wage. She noted that Orange County has provided this letter. Commissioner Burroughs said in order for CHCCS to do this, it would have to come through the budget process. Commissioner Rich said the CHCCS are an extension of the County, since both school systems receive almost half of the tax dollars. She said it is a problem to create a policy that is not being followed by the inside circle. Commissioner Burroughs said the CHCCS have been contracting out more over the past several years. She said, in order to deal with the remaining employees and look at all of the contracting that they do, it would be a multi-million dollar budget question. She said it could be the right thing to ask them to think about this, but it is a large scale discussion. Commissioner Rich said the schools were asked to provide this information during the collaboration meeting, and Orange County provided this, but no letter or statement has been received from CHCCS. Chair McKee said he will follow up on this. Commissioner Jacobs said he has tried to push for doing this on contracts for years. He said he has asked for follow up on how other jurisdictions deal with these issues. He noted that no providers of home care for the elderly come close to paying a living wage for that service. He questioned what the policy would be in a case like this, and he said it is important to anticipate the difficulties of a potential policy. He said other jurisdictions have already dealt with these issues and could provide advice. Chair McKee said he is hearing that the Board would like to see answers for the questions on page two of their abstract. He said he will follow up with the chair of the Chapel Hill Board of Education regarding the living wage question. He said his understanding is that Orange County Schools' movement on the living wage is for its employees, but he is not sure if this applies to their contract providers. Chair McKee suggested this item should be scheduled for another work session to provide time for the answers to be provided. Greg Wilder said this could possibly be added to the April 9th work session. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there have been any conversations with the Sheriff's department. Bonnie Hammersley said she will follow up on this. Commissioner porosin asked if this item can be discussed at a regular meeting, as soon as it can be added. Bonnie Hammersley said staff will bring it back as soon as possible. Commissioner McKee said this can come back to a regular meeting, and the Board can decide to vote or not vote at that time. 2. Discussion of Process for the Public to Place an Item on a Reqular Board Meetinq Aqenda Chair McKee said that the Board did not get to this item at the recent retreat, although there was a discussion of bringing petitions from the Board. He said he heard that if the petition was an item that had a quick answer, then the manager or staff inember could address it on the same night. He said if it was a regular petition item or decision item that would require study, the item would go through standard Chair/Vice-Chair agenda review and then brought back at a later date. Commissioner Price clarified that this is not regarding public petitions. Chair McKee said no. He is just trying to tie up the discussion that was started regarding petitions by Board members. Commissioner Rich asked what happens if there is an information item, and the person who can provide the information is not present. She asked if this becomes a petition, or it is still an information item. Bonnie Hammersley said staff is sometimes able to answer the question right away if it is just an information item. She said things are being done a little differently for petitions. She said these are accepted, and then recommendations and next steps for completion are worked out by the manager and Greg Wilder before being brought to the Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Rich said she likes to hear that, as it means that every petition gets movement and it sounds like all of them would get resolved. Bonnie Hammersley said if she or her staff inembers do not understand the petition, clarification will be requested. Commissioner Jacobs said he does not think that it is necessary to get the answer instantaneously at the meeting. He said his understanding was that the manager would try to address and handle any concerns expressed by the Commissioners, and if clarification was needed, she would contact the Commissioner or seek guidance from the Chair or Vice Chair. He said there may be times when there is a political issue that requires the Chair or Vice Chair to weigh in. Chair McKee said the goal is to be timelier while still keeping an orderly process. Commissioner Price asked about situations where immediate action is needed, such as a situation where a high school team deserves recognition, and it is the end of the school year. She asked if something like this would require a 2 to 3 week approval. Chair McKee said these will have to be examined on a case by case basis. Commissioner Price said that is fine as long as it allows some flexibility. Commissioner Rich asked the manager if she will recognize when something is an information item versus a petition. Chair McKee said he and the manager will be looking out for this. Chair McKee said he just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page regarding Board member petitions. Chair McKee transitioned to a discussion of the process for members of the public to place an item on a regular meeting agenda. He asked if anyone has problems with the current process. He feels that all of these should go through agenda review. Commissioner Rich said in the two years that she has been here, there has only been one public petition, and it was approved that same night. She said this was just some sort of recognition. She said she agrees that petitions from the public should go through a process; otherwise the Board would be discussing every petition. Commissioner Burroughs said she agrees that public petitions need to have a process. She said the school board had a requirement that one school board member had to agree to put a topic proposed by a member of the public on an agenda. Commissioner Price discussed the example of public petitions regarding fluoride in the water supply, which is not in the purview of the Board. She said this issue keeps coming before them, and she wonders if there needs to be a discussion and perhaps a tabling of this in a work session. She said she sometimes feels a responsibility to do something other than just let it lie. Chair McKee said he feels this issue can only be addressed in Board comments. Commissioner Pelissier said more than one person should decide whether or not to address a petition. She questioned what would happen if the Chair and Vice Chair do not want to address a petition and all of the other Commissioners do want to address it. She said there should be a way to communicate this to the Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Jacobs said he wants to make sure to keep the public petition process separate from the Commissioners' petition process. He said he feels that his job as a Commissioner is to get people answers to their questions. He said he has dealt with the fluoride issue before, and while he could not solve the problem, he could provide a response. He thinks it should not matter if one of the Commissioners is going to sponsor the question or not. Commissioner Rich asked about the resident who petitioned the Board regarding the impervious surface issue. Craig Benedict said this will come back to the Board, and there will be two options. He said Orange County is more restrictive on this than the state, and there are some questions about this. He said one option is a unified development ordinance (UDO) change, and the other option would be to ask the state about allowing impervious pavement. He said a memo will be coming to the Board in the coming weeks. Commissioner Rich asked if the resident knows that this work is being done. Craig Benedict said yes. Commissioner Rich referred to Commissioner Jacob's statement that it is the Board's job to provide people with information. She questioned whether this is happening. Bonnie Hammersley said the impervious surface question is an example of how the petition process works. She said the petition was submitted, and it was assigned to Craig Benedict. She said the department directors take these petitions seriously. Commissioner porosin asked if every petition that has been raised by citizens has received a response. Chair McKee and Commissioner Jacobs said yes. Commissioner porosin said it would be good to know that. He would like to see an update when residents are sent a letter or answers are provided. Commissioner Jacobs said the response letter that Commissioner's receive in response to petitions states that the item was referred to the planning director, who will follow through with the citizen, and it often gives a time frame. He said you will not see the actual letter, but you will see a reference to the fact that it is being sent, or that it has been assigned to someone. Commissioner porosin said he has seen the department references, but he does not recall seeing updates when a letter is sent to residents. Commissioner Jacobs said most of the time staff brings it back to the Board before answering the reference. Commissioner Rich asked if the issue is considered resolved if a letter has gone out to a resident. She questioned the process if a Commissioner wants to address an overall change versus just for an individual person. Chair McKee said to keep in mind that this situation does not happen very often, and the Board has to be careful to avoid a feedback loop that is too tight. Commissioner Rich said she just wants to make sure nothing slips through the cracks. Chair McKee said there is an effort going on right now regarding connectivity, and this was not initiated by a citizen or Board member petition. He said this came from a general email from a resident. He said this is not something he can work on, because it is an issue that information technology (IT) has to resolve. He said many issues that may seem to have slipped through the crack are actually just being slowly processed. Commissioner Rich said this issue is one that the Board knows about and updates are being received. She questioned whether there are other issues where this is not happening. Chair McKee said it is a rare occasion when this happens. Commissioner Price said a whole group of people came and petitioned the Board to name the senior center after a particular person. She said this went to agenda review and it never came back to the full Board. She said a letter was sent out, and the rest of the Board had no knowledge of what was happening until it was done. She said the Board members are out in the public and being questioned about this. She said it would be nice to know in advance when this will happen. Chair McKee said in that instance, the letter responded with a statement on the naming policy, which has very little leeway. He said this speaks the idea that each issue is situational. Commissioner Jacobs said every member of the Board got a copy of the letter that was sent, and no one has raised the issue or petitioned the Board to reconsider the policy. Commissioner Price said she has suggested that perhaps a wing or a room could be named after the person. She said by the time the Board received the letter, it had already gone out, and it would be nice to know in advance. Bonnie Hammersley said staff is addressing questions all the time. She said she receives the same emails that the Board receives, and she sends them to staff for a response. She said she will try to remember to copy the Board on these emails and letters. She said she tries to respond to these very quickly so the Board will not have to do it. She encouraged the Board to let her know if they feel something is falling through the cracks. Chair McKee said he is not hearing that there is a need for any major changes, but that the process just needs a little tweaking. 3. Discussion on Boards and Commissions Processes Chair McKee said everyone is aware of the current process for filling boards and commissions. He invited questions and discussion from the Commissioners regarding the four decision points listed on Attachment A and referenced below: 1) Diverse pool of candidates Decision Point: Does the Board want the Clerk's office to use paid advertising (currently we use PSAs)? Commissioner Price asked if there is a different level of response anticipated if paid advertising is used versus a public service announcement (PSA). Thom Freeman said it is hard to tell. He said the PSAs are going out to a broad group of people, and these are picked up by newspapers on occasion. Commissioner Price asked if there is any need to change to paid advertisements. David Hunt said the PSAs go out to about 600 people, including media outlets, bloggers, political activists, and private citizens. He is not sure that a paid advertisement will grab much more attention. He said there are multiple ways to publicize openings. He said Thom Freeman and he have discussed the fact that the members of some of these boards have co-workers, friends and people with common interests. He said it may be more effective than paid advertising to have these people help get the word out that there are openings Thom Freeman said the use of social media has also been discussed. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board has contemplated paid advertising in the past for positions that were difficult to fill. He said there is also a large group of people who attend the university, and he does not believe they are being reached. He suggested advertising in the Daily Tarheel. He said a little humor and creativity in the PSA or advertising might also help. He said paid advertising might help with targeting places where it is difficult to shine a light, but not as a general rule. Commissioner porosin said he agreed with the idea of reaching out to the students. He said he also believes it is worth exploring the public schools as a means of helping recruit people. He is not sure that paid advertising is the way to go, other than the Daily Tarheel, which comes out every day and has the largest circulation in Orange County. Thom Freeman said he does see a surge when a PSA is sent out. David Hunt said some of those responses come as a result of the direct emails. He said the main reason for the question about paid advertising is to determine if it is something that needs to be included in the upcoming budget discussions. Chair McKee said he is not hearing a lot of support for paid advertising. Thom Freeman asked about the Daily Tarheel. Chair Jacobs said he would support advertising here, but he would like to first see if the newspaper would run the advertisement. Commissioner porosin said the Campus Y is another central point to get the word out to a targeted group. Commissioner Rich said a lot of this involves word of mouth. She also thinks that the public schools are a great way to reach people. She said there is a transition happening from the use of flyers to a webpage. She is not sure how this will affect things. Commissioner Burroughs said she was present when this change was decided, and it was due to the staff cost for stuffing the backpacks. She was not aware that people would have to actively go to a website. She said this does not cost the school system anything, so it is something to consider. Commissioner Jacobs said the Daily Tarheel may also run a PSA rather than requiring a paid advertisement. David Hunt said that currently the PSAs go out to all of the media outlets, and it is up to them whether they run it or not. He said with paid advertisements the County decides which papers to advertise with, and what size of advertisement to run. He said some entities do a regular weekly or monthly display advertisement. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that staff have a conversation with the Daily Tarheel about whether a PSA would be run, or if paid advertising is needed. He said the food council meetings are packed with young people, and these are the people that never participate in these boards. He said this part of the community is not being reached, and if it takes a little extra effort to reach them, he still thinks it will be worth the payout. Chair McKee said he is still hearing that there is not a lot of current support for paid advertisement, but there is support for PSAs and possible paid advertising at a later point. Thom Freeman said candidates are asked on their application where they found out about the opening. He said the top answer is the Orange County website, followed by word of mouth. � Fillinq all positions on a particular board or commission Currently there are a minimal number of vacancies on our boards and commissions; however, the larger the board, the more vacancies there may be. There has been some discussion that it may be harder to fill vacancies that are "specifically defined" such as At Large vs Cheeks Township or a particular designation. Decision Point: Does the Board want to leave as is the "special position requirements" or consider alternatives? � Do boards and commissions need to vet applications prior to submission to BOCC? Currently, with the exception of some boards (Planning, Board of Adjustment, and even the OUTBOARD), most boards vet applicants and present recommendations to the BOCC for consideration. Decision Point: Does the Board want to adopt a formalized process as relates to this issue? Commissioner porosin said he would be in favor of getting rid of all special requirements. He said the Board can take things like geographic diversity or applicant backgrounds into account during the nomination process. He said he thinks it makes no sense to have vacancies when people have applied to be on the Board. Commissioner Rich asked what happens if you find that all of the applicants are from Chapel Hill and no other part of the County. She questioned how you could know that future Commissioners would not stack committees in their favor. She said if you take away requirements, such as geographical location, you could wind up with too many people from one area, and then you do not have diversity. She questioned how to make sure each area of the County gets to participate in advisory board decisions. Commissioner Pelissier asked if this discussion is just about the geographical requirements that are a choice. She said there are a lot of boards where you have to be qualified in a certain way, including some geographical requirements, and some of these are by state statute. Chair McKee said his reading is that this discussion is about geographical requirements only. Commissioner porosin said he would be in favor of getting rid of any of these requirements that are not statutory. Chair McKee said he is not sure that all of the specific types are statutorily required, but they might be necessary. Commissioner Rich asked which boards are having a problem. Chair McKee said the Housing Authority board has had difficulty with achieving quorum. Commissioner Rich said she is trying to figure out the boards with a geographical requirement. Chair McKee said this includes Animal Services, and Agricultural Preservation. Commissioner Jacobs said the Commission for the Environment has very specific limitations. Commissioner Pelissier said these are not geographical limitations. She said if it is focused on geographical, the primary board is the Planning Board. She thinks it is very important for the Planning Board to have people from different parts of the County. She said these people have very different experiences to offer. Commissioner Pelissier said, thinking about non-geographical requirements, it is important for a board such as the Commission for the Environment to have people who know about different aspects of the environment. She wants to see that diversity. She said there has been not much of a problem, and she does not want to see a change because of a few glitches. She does not think this helps with moving forward. Commissioner Price said there have been problems with geographic issues on the Planning Board. She said her spot on this board has changed continuously as a result of this. She said she agrees with Commissioner porosin that flexibility is needed, but she also agrees with Commissioner Rich that there needs to be balance. Commissioner Price said the other issue is that some people are just not interested because they feel it is a waste of time. She said many boards and commissions meet in the evening, which can be difficult for people. She said there have been people on the OUTBoard who have had to leave. She said people have also questioned whether the Commissioners pay attention to what comes out of these advisory board meetings. Commissioner Jacobs said he came into this thinking of the fact that the places with the longest unfilled vacancies are the ones that are designated to the towns, who never bother to fill them. He said the towns do not care, and he would like to create a mechanism that if a town vacancy is not filled within 6 months, it is up for "grabs". He said efforts can still be made to find someone in that municipality, but they would not have to be recommended by the elected officials. Commissioner Jacobs said he thinks there are a lot of other boards with specific requirements. He said the slate could be wiped, and the Board of Commissioners would just be trusted to put applicants on these boards that represent a diversity of interest in that particular area, if there is not statutory requirement. However, he said his inclination is that the requirements have been worked out over a long period of time to create a balance. He said it is important to have the geographical diversity on the Planning Board to make sure everyone has a say. He said he would be willing to look at the board to see if any are more restrictive than necessary, and he would like to make a policy regarding the unfilled town positions. Commissioner Burroughs said her thinking is somewhat incremental. She believes the current system was set up for fairly good reasons. She likes the idea that if a town position is not filled in 6 months, the Board can fill it. She said she would not throw out the whole system, as it can lead to homogenization. She said this is directly dealing with the seats that are not getting filled, rather than throwing out the whole system. Commissioner porosin said his interest is not tearing down what has been constructed. He questions, when there are seats that are vacant for a period of time, whether it is better to have this reserved for a specific category, or to have the Board fill those seats with people who have applied to be on that Board. He said this may not mean that the requirements go away forever. He said it is important to recognize the people who step forward with interest in being on these boards. He said the other question is identifying why there are vacancies. He questioned whether the problem is recruitment or a board that is not functioning well. He said all of this speaks to other issues, such as people serving on multiple boards. He said the goal should be to maximize the level of citizen engagement. He said he has talked to people who applied for boards and never heard anything. He would expand Commissioner Jacob's suggestion about filling the town seats after 6 months to include any seat that is hard to fill. Commissioner Jacobs said he would be willing to consider this proposal. Commissioner Jacobs said Randy Marshall, the former principal of Carrboro Elementary, has been applying for the Planning Board for at least 10 years. He said it would be nice to see this information and see how long people have been on the list. He said if people continue to renew their application to serve, then the Board does owe them a courtesy. Commissioner Jacobs gave some background history on the Housing Authority, and he said there is some gray area about what this board is supposed to be doing. He suggested work by the department heads and the attorney to determine the distinctive roles of the boards to make it easier to recruit for them. Chair McKee already asked the staff to work with the chairs of these boards on a six month record of attendance to identify where there are problems. He said if a person has a long history of not attending meetings, it is time to start looking for another applicant. Commissioner Rich said this is moving toward a six month period after which another applicant is considered. She asked if information on the length of a vacancy is provided in the abstracts. She said the Commissioners do not have this information. Thom Freeman said there has been information added to the bottom of the abstract, which lists the vacant seats and the expiration date of the vacancy. He said it does not list the amount of time the position has been open. He said part of this is a flaw with the database, but staff can work on getting this information in there. Commissioner Rich said it would be helpful to have that information, given the direction things are moving. Commissioner Rich said she is still not 100 percent comfortable with removing the requirements. She said she understands what Commissioner porosin is saying about extending courtesy to people who are sending in applications. Thom Freeman said a form email is sent to all applicants to note the receipt of their application, and it outlines the fact that applications stay on file for two years and are continually placed in the running for vacancies. Commissioner Rich said people's names might be lingering on the list, and they have moved. Thom Freeman said if he sees someone who has been out there for a year without being appointed, he sends another email to see if they are still interested. He then updates the file with the information supplied. Commissioner Price said one of the reasons for the lack of full membership is because staff and members of the advisory boards pick who will be on the boards. She said the Board has not been allowed to suggest new people, and she thinks this is wrong. She said if there are vacancies, and no one has been suggested, she feels that the Commissioners should be able to suggest someone. Commissioner Price said the Board has a responsibility to bring people onto these boards and commissioners if they are interested and qualified. Commissioner Jacobs said he thinks this has gotten a little contorted. He referred to the last decision point, which asks if the Board wants to develop a process for nominating applicants that are not recommended by a particular advisory board. He said this makes it sound like the Board is precluded from nominating people, and he does not feel like this is the case. He said when he and Chair McKee met with the advisory board chairs, it was explained that the final decision on appointments would be made by the Board of Commissioners. He said the Board has gotten comfortable with just accepting the nominations that have been recommended. He said the Board needs to resolve how to become comfortable doing something different at the meetings. Commissioner Price said her point is that if staff has not recommended a person, anyone recommended by a Commissioner would need to be vetted. She said there have been meetings where positions were not filled when there were people on the roster who could have been nominated. Chair McKee said this was done in deference to his objection to immediate nominations. Commissioner Price said she does not know some of the nominees, but she is willing to trust the recommendation of her colleagues. Chair McKee said there is no reason why the Commissioners could not nominate someone, and he might or might not vote against them. Thom Freeman said it is stated in the advisory board policy that the appointment decisions are ultimately the decision of the Board. Chair McKee said he appreciated the deference to his objection, but he did not expect it to go to the extent that it did. He did not expect it to become an established practice. Commissioner Pelissier said she thinks this did go way off track. She said she never felt constrained before by the recommendations of the advisory boards. She said one of the other things that caused this to go off track is the fact that these advisory boards go through a lengthy interview process with the applicants, and one of these boards got upset because they did not have an opportunity to vet some of the applicants that were going to be appointed by the Commissioners. She said it is important to give the advisory boards an opportunity to make recommendations, and if no recommendations are made, then the Board may want to fill some positions. Chair McKee said he is hearing three different areas of discussion. He said there seems to be consensus on the idea of the Board making appointments for town positions that remain unfilled for six months or more. Chair McKee said he is not hearing consensus on the issue of positions based on geographic area. He thinks it is critical to hold some of these positions for specific areas of the County, though he could possibly be persuaded on a six month argument. He said his fear is that a future board might fill some of these vacancies for outlying areas, and the term is 3 years at a time, so this might eliminate a person from that area who might be interested. He said he recruits for some of these positions. Commissioner Rich said that for some of these positions, if the six month rule was in place there might be more pressure to fill the spot. Commissioner porosin said on the question of geography, he would support a six month window. He said that would put the burden on the Board and staff to try to recruit. He said, as far as the three year term, if you get rid of the geographic requirements, seats come up all the time, and there is flexibility to recruit from the area that is lacking representation the next time a seat comes up. Commissioner porosin said if you consider having vacant seats while there are people on a wait list versus having the boards fully filled, he would be in favor of the latter option. He said, as far as vetting applications, he thinks the Board has put itself in a box. He said if you want the advisory boards to make recommendations, but then the Commissioners are ultimately going to do whatever they want, this sends mixed signals. He said if the Board wants to have the discretion, they should just say that they are going to fill the seats, or more clear direction needs to be given to the advisory board on the desired diversity. He said if the recommendations do not meet these guidelines, they should not be taken. Commissioner porosin said he would be in favor of the advisory boards not vetting the applications. He has referred candidates that were then screened out of the process. Commissioner Jacobs said there was a time when the Board received no recommendations from the advisory boards. He said the predilection could be changed if the Board chooses to do so. He said there needs to be some sort of hands on approach to insure diversity. He said there can be more flexibility for the Board to appoint, and it does not have to be a given that the advisory board makes recommendations. Chair McKee said he would propose trying the six month proposal for filling the positions with a geographic requirement. Commissioner Price said if you make sure there are enough at-large seats, it allows the flexibility to switch the people around. She said this will ensure that you are not locked into that three year term issue. Chair McKee said he is seeing consensus on this, and on using the six month time for the geographic spots from this point forward. Commissioner Jacobs said staff will make the effort to try and find someone to fill that spot within the six month time. Chair McKee said he would also like to see efforts to alert the Commissioners about these spots, to allow them the opportunity to recruit. Thom Freeman requested a little time to get with Information Technology to set up a system for tracking the six month periods. Chair McKee asked Thom Freeman to present this as an information item at a future meeting to give an update on where things stand. John Roberts said this will also require an amendment to the advisory board policy. Chair McKee said, on the issue of vetting, he is hearing that the advisory boards will still vet candidates and make a recommendation, but the Board would not be so constrained to follow that recommendation unless it is statutory. Commissioner Price questioned whether the Board would be able to make a recommendation or decision for some of the health boards. She said there are some strict requirements for these positions. Chair McKee said if candidate with a nursing degree is recommended, the Board could recommend a different candidate as long as they also had a nursing degree. He said the alternate candidate would just need to have the same qualifications. Thom Freeman said those type of vacancies are rare. He said the nursing homes have a one year training program for some of these positions. � Service on multiple boards—which currently allows service up to two boards and task forces? According to the BOCC Adopted Advisory Board Policy (Adopted 2012), it states: SECTION III: MEMBERSHIP E. Term 5. Advisory board members may not serve concurrently on more than two (2) Orange County advisory boards. This restriction does not impact an individual's service on boards and commissions that are not Orange County advisory boards or short term task forces or work groups. Decision Point: Does the Board wish to change this portion of the policy or leave as adopted? Commissioner Price said the policy should not allow more than two advisory boards if there is a pool of people wanting to serve. Commissioner porosin said he thinks the policy should be changed so that you can only serve on one board at a time. He said this restriction would not impact service on temporary task forces or work groups. John Roberts said people could actually be on three boards at a time if they are appointed to one of the quasi-judicial boards, as these are not advisory boards. Thom Freeman said if this becomes the rule, people who have applied to three boards and have been appointed to one board would need to be removed from the other two applicant pools. He said these people would need to be notified. Commissioner Rich said she does not have a problem with people serving on more than one board, because people have different interests. She said some boards meeting quarterly and others meet once a month. She does not like this restriction. Commissioner Jacobs said he feels that the cross pollination of being on different boards is a good thing. He said it is sometimes difficult to get boards of similar interest to actually communicate, and having people on multiple boards facilitates communication. Commissioner Pelissier said she has served on two boards, and she saw herself as a liaison between the two. She said it is good to have some of this, but not too much. She said it is important to find ways to have cross pollination between boards. For example, she said it is important that the Board of Health knows what is going on in other boards with regard to health related issues. Commissioner Pelissier said she does see some of the same names over and over, and it is not just an issue of serving on two boards at one time, but also an issue of moving from one board to another when terms end. She said there are certain reasons why boards will sometimes actually want someone who serves on another board. Chair McKee said he is also hesitant to restrict the policy to one board. He agrees with the idea of spreading the wealth around, but there are some boards that are not overrun with applicants, and he is comfortable allowing service on two boards. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a way to get a report on the number of people serving on more than one board. Thom Freeman said he can have that information pulled. Commissioner porosin said he would like to register his respectful dissent. He said even if you change this to one board, people can still serve on multiple boards by being on short term task forces, work groups or the non-advisory boards. Commissioner Price said she does not mind the multiple boards. She said it is the job of the Board to make sure that the wealth is spread around. Commissioner porosin suggested that if someone is already serving on an advisory board, they would only be placed on a second board if there were no other applicants. Chair McKee said he is not seeing consensus on this. � Process for nominations for applicants (who are not recommended) at Board meetinqs? Currently, most nominations for applicants to boards and commissions come from advisory board recommendations. Decision Point: Does the Board want to develop a process for nominating applicants at BOCC meetings who are not recommended by a particular advisory board? There was consensus that this issue was already decided in the earlier discussion. 4. Discussion on Board Rules of Procedures Chair McKee said this item arises from discussion about moving board comments to the beginning of the meeting when there is more of an audience present. Commissioner porosin said his real concern was regarding announcements that are directed at the public, such as event announcements and things of that nature. He thinks this should be included at the front of the meeting as Board petitions and announcements, and the Board should police themselves that these announcements are directed outward. He said reports that are more internal process updates could stay at the end of the meeting. He said when there are community based events, it is important to have these at the front of the meeting. Chair McKee suggested that the Board open up the petition section to include announcements that are related to public events, while holding the three minute limit. He said he objects to moving all comments to the beginning, because there are people waiting to discuss other items. Commissioner Rich said she would like to keep the petitions separate from the announcements. Chair McKee said he is just trying to find a way to limit the time. Commissioner Price said she is still thinking along the lines of comments versus announcements. She said there are times when you want to make a comment recognizing employees for doing an outstanding job, and you want the public to hear this. Chair McKee said he does not have a problem with that, and the Board members would have to use their own discretion. Commissioner Price said she agrees with the idea of giving certain comments in the beginning and then give more internal reports at the end of the meeting. Commissioner Jacobs said the key is keeping it to three minutes. He said Board members should have the opportunity to make any comments while the room is full. He said there have been problems in the past with sticking to the three minute requirement, but everyone in this group is good at keeping within the time frame. Commissioner Burroughs said she is very comfortable with the three minute limit. Chair McKee said he is hearing consensus to make this change and leave three minutes for each Board member. Commissioner Rich asked if"Petitions" would become "Petitions and Announcements." Chair McKee said that was his wording, but he is open to other suggestions. He said it will be up to the Board to clarify when a comment is being made versus a petition. He said there needs to be a habit of making a clear statement when it is a petition. David Hunt said this proposal would need to come back to the Board for approval. He said he is hearing that this is to be changed to "Petitions and Announcements" with a three minute time limit, and then there will be comments time at the end of the meeting, without a time limit. Chair McKee said there seems to be consensus on that solution. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Earl McKee, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk