Special Committee on Council Advisory Boards and Commissions Meeting - May 20, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Special Committee on Council Advisory Boards and Commissions Meeting - May 20, 2025
The Special Committee on Council Advisory Boards and Commissions met on May 20, 2025, at 9:30 AM in the City Council Chamber. The meeting focused on three main agenda items: results of a survey of current and past advisory board and commission members, a draft standardized bylaws template, and draft guidance on the council liaison role. The committee discussed survey findings, potential board mergers, and operational improvements, and reached consensus on several recommendations to advance to the full council.
Discussion Items
1. Review of Survey Results
Assistant City Manager Evan Roth and Community Engagement Department representative Taysha Mosley presented survey highlights. Key findings included:
- 78% of respondents rated their overall experience as good.
- 80% agreed that mission and goals were clear and followed.
- 73% believed their recommendations had measurable impact.
- 57% supported allowing the overarching board to select subcommittee members.
- 20% saw value in merging certain boards, with suggestions for pairing Historic Cemeteries with Historic Resources, and Bicycle/Pedestrian with Parks and Greenway.
- Respondents requested consistency in council liaison attendance, increased communication with council, feedback on work plans, and better onboarding/training.
Council members discussed the data, noting that only 69% felt their work aligned with council priorities and that about a quarter did not feel their work had measurable impact. Councilor Branch suggested mapping boards to the city's strategic plan to clarify alignment. Mayor Cowell expressed interest in merging boards with low attendance or unclear direction, citing the example of the Historic Cemetery Advisory Board, whose staff liaison confirmed the board's mission had been accomplished and they were open to a merger. The committee also discussed the possibility of consolidating human-relations-related boards (e.g., African American Affairs, Hispanic and Immigrant Affairs, Substance Use) into a single Human Relations Commission with subcommittees, though concerns about board size were raised.
2. Standardized Bylaws Template
Ms. Mosley presented a draft template designed to standardize the structure and operation of all advisory boards and commissions. Key provisions included:
- Explicit requirement for annual work plans falling within the board's purview.
- Residency requirement: members must reside within city limits or forfeit seat.
- Clear resignation process (notifying city clerk, not just ceasing attendance).
- Notice requirements for public meetings.
- Quorum defined without counting vacant seats.
- A reserved article for board-specific unique provisions.
Council members discussed subcommittee support, work plan timing, and presentation length. Councilor Jones suggested aligning work plan presentations with strategic plan categories to streamline council review. It was noted that staff currently manage scheduling of work plan presentations, and a guide for concise presentations exists. The committee agreed the template was a good foundation but requested adding language clarifying staff support for subcommittees.
3. Council Liaison Role – Draft Guidance
Ms. Mosley presented draft guidance based on practices from other cities. Key points:
- Mayor designates a council liaison at the organizational meeting after elections.
- Liaison serves as a two-way communication channel, not an advocate or ex-officio member.
- Primary contact for resolving problems, providing procedural direction, and relaying council's vision.
- Liaisons normally do not attend monthly meetings but can be informed via agendas, minutes, and work plans.
- Liaisons may attend when specific items are of interest or upon request of the board or staff liaison.
Councilor Branch expressed concern about item #9, which stated liaisons "facilitate training of new board members." He noted that new council members may not have enough knowledge to do so. The committee agreed to revise the language to say liaisons "may provide suggestions to staff related to training." The draft was otherwise well-received.
4. Subcommittee and Merger Considerations
During broader discussion, the committee considered how to handle subcommittees, including the risk of overlapping subcommittees (e.g., multiple tree-related subcommittees). Mayor Cowell suggested that subcommittees might require council approval as part of the work plan to avoid duplication. Staff was asked to bring back recommendations on board composition and merger processes, including board size considerations.
Key Outcomes
The committee reached consensus on the following actions to recommend to the full council:
- Adopt the standardized bylaws template for all advisory boards and commissions, with a minor revision to clarify staff support for subcommittees.
- Adopt the council liaison guidance with the revision to item #9 (liaisons may provide suggestions to staff regarding training, not facilitate).
- Direct staff to develop merger recommendations for specific boards (e.g., Historic Cemeteries with Historic Resources, and potential consolidation of human-relations boards), including analysis of board size and composition.
- Direct staff to create a strategy for orienting board chairs and establishing a regular convening of board leadership (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual plenary sessions).
- Direct staff to align work plan presentations with the city's strategic plan and to develop a process for council approval of subcommittees to avoid overlap.
- Staff will return at the next committee meeting with further details on merger opportunities, board composition, and subcommittee appointment procedures.
Meeting Transcript
Thanks everybody for coming to the special committee on council advisory boards and commissions. I will turn it over to Assistant City Manager Evan Roth. All right, good morning, Mayor and members of the committee. Good to be with you this morning. I know this is the beginning of a long day of meetings for you. So we'll we've got several follow-up items from the last committee meeting, but we'll try to move through it as expeditiously as we can. So just to quickly review uh at our uh I guess the initial meeting of the uh special committee, we uh took you through some information related to the current function structure of the various advisory boards and commissions, and the committee requested uh several follow-up items, um, many of which I'm happy to say we have uh been able to work through and will be presenting to you today. So um we have uh Miss Taysha Mosley with the uh community engagement department that's gonna walk you through three pieces of of information. Uh the first was the survey that we uh conducted of current and past uh advisory boards and commission members. So uh we will share the results of that survey with you. Uh we have also worked hard to produce a draft bylaw template. Uh there was a lot of conversation last year around about standardizing the um the structure of boards and commissions. And so uh we have a template for your consideration that we'll walk you through. And then lastly, today we will uh also provide you with some draft guidance on the council liaison role. There was a lot of discussion about uh more clarity um on the roles and responsibilities of the that function. And so we have some draft guidance that we have um pieced together by looking at some other communities that have a l a lot of uh strong guidance in that area for your consideration. So without further ado, I'll ask Miss uh Mosley to come up and begin uh to walk us through the presentation. Good morning. Are not lucky to be the first face of all your meetings today? Yeah. You're number two. Uh community engagement department. And so um, as Mr. Riley discussed, we're gonna go through all of those items and then we've baked in a discussion point after each one so that you don't have to remember everything and then hold your questions until the end, unless that's your preference. So to just level set as a quick reminder. Um, here are the boards and commissions that we're referring to. And we're having some technical difficulties, so don't mind the arrow and the red dots. They'll be throughout the slides today. Nevertheless, uh, we are referring to the boards and commissions that are advisory in nature, only appointed by the city council. All right, so that experience survey. This may be a little bit difficult to read, but we wanted to make sure you could see that we have participation from almost every advisory board or commission. And the reason that there's an other at the bottom is only because I'll use an example. Two people selected other, but they're a part of the mayor's persons, um, mayor's committee for persons with disabilities, but they are listed up there. They just didn't see it. So it's it's not another board, I promise. Some quick highlights. Um about 78% of the respondents uh indicated that they had their overall experience was good with the board of commission. 80% agree that the mission and goals were made clear and understood and followed by its members. And that's an interesting data point, right? I mean, it sort of drops and that they feel like I mean, and can you elucidate? Do you have more information on that particular point that they feel like they're maybe off topic? A little bit in the open-ended part, but I believe we'll cover that. Okay. 73% agree that the recommendations or programs that they make as a board or commission have a measurable impact on the community. We did have a question where we posed the potential merger or consolidation of boards. Um you all asked, you know, it will would council appoint the body that became a subcommittee or with the board want to do that. And they 57% support the members of that overarching board selecting members of the subcommittee. Um we also asked for recommendations on a potential merger if that was something that they agreed with. You had about 20% of respondents who said that they see value in a potential merge. And here's some of those recommendations.
openpublica.com