Legislative RulesCommittee Meeting: Appointments Commission Repeal and Reporting Ordinance - April 28, 2026
Legislative Rules Committee Meeting Summary – April 28, 2026
The Legislative Rules Committee of the Board of Representatives met on April 28, 2026, from 7:01 PM to 9:58 PM. The committee considered two ordinances: one to repeal the Appointments Commission (LR 32.016) and another to establish information reporting requirements for mayoral appointments (LR 32.017). Extensive testimony from former commission members preceded debate on transparency, board vacancies, and oversight. Both items were ultimately postponed to the next committee meeting.
Discussion Items
LR 32.016 – Ordinance to Repeal the Appointments Commission
- Invited speakers: Former Representative Jess Stella (creator of the commission) and former commission chair Steve Gars argued against repeal. Stella emphasized the need for transparency, noting that the commission was intended to compile a public list of all applicants for board and commission positions, preventing disconnects like the case of Frances Lane, who applied repeatedly without response until a board member intervened. He highlighted the commission’s inability to function due to lack of quorum (only three of nine members) and resignations without replacement, and criticized the current process where applicants to the mayor’s office or party committees receive no feedback.
- Steve Gars reported that as of December 1, 2025, there were 115 expired or vacant seats across city boards and commissions, and cited an applicant from January 2026 who had not received any response. He argued the commission could have helped fill seats and provide transparency, but lacked support from the administration.
- Committee debate: Several representatives (Weinberg, LePine, Fields, Blank) supported repeal, arguing the commission had been ineffective and that transparency could be achieved through existing mechanisms (e.g., FOIA, board of reps’ own appointments committee). Representative Weinberg presented his own data: as of March 27, 2026, of 150 seats on 26 volunteer boards, only 9 were “true holdovers” (terms expired before Nov. 30, 2025) and 14 were vacant, totaling 23 (15%) – a much lower figure than the 115 cited. He called the commission “a solution in search of a problem.” Others (Vice Chair Caporelli, Stella) insisted the commission’s failure was due to lack of administration support, and that a functioning commission could safeguard transparency and give unaffiliated applicants a pathway.
- Outcome: A motion to table (lay on the table) passed 7-2. Later, after considering LR 32.017, the committee voted to postpone LR 32.016 definitely to the next meeting (vote 7-2).
LR 32.017 – Ordinance on Information Reporting Requirements for Appointments
- The ordinance, sponsored by the chair and vice chair, requires the mayor’s office to compile and report aggregated, anonymous data on applicants and appointees to boards and commissions (e.g., demographic breakdowns, number of applicants per seat, timeline).
- Amendment by Rep. Boudreau: Added requirements that all appointees must complete a prescribed application form; clarified that the form must note which questions are optional; standardized pronoun usage to “his or her”; and set an effective date of the first day of the month at least 30 days after enactment. Passed unanimously by voice vote.
- Amendment by Vice Chair Caporelli: Added a new section 52-12 – “Expiration Report” – requiring the mayor or designee to notify the president of the board of representatives of any vacancy or expired term that has exceeded 120 days. Some representatives argued this was unnecessary since expiration data is already online, while supporters said it would close a loophole that allowed expired-term members to continue without board review. The amendment passed 5-4 (roll call: Blank, Boudreau, Caporelli, Stone yes; Hughes, Hyatt, LePine, Weinberg no).
- Motion to recommit (to steering committee) failed 4-5.
- Motion to postpone definitely to the next committee meeting passed unanimously by voice vote.
Key Outcomes
- LR 32.016 (Repeal of Appointments Commission): Postponed definitely to the next committee meeting (vote 7-2).
- LR 32.017 (Reporting Requirements): Postponed definitely to the next committee meeting (unanimous voice vote).
- Amendment to LR 32.017 (Expiration Report): Adopted 5-4.
- The committee adjourned at 9:58 PM.
Note: The meeting agenda and minutes were not available; this summary is based solely on the transcribed discussion.
Meeting Transcript
Already. So I'm gonna call to order this meeting of the legislative rules committee or the board of representatives at 701 p.m. Today, April 28th, 2026. I note that I see representatives blank and road, Vice Chair Caporelli, Representative Hughes, Pyatt, myself, Stone, Weinberg, all in attendance. So the board that are attended that I haven't otherwise called, please go ahead. Make yourself known. No others. So I declare that we do have a quorum. And then we're going to move forward with item one on the agenda, which is LR 32.016, an ordinance for publication to repeal the appointments commission per article 17 of chapter 6, including section 6-121 through 6-124 of the code of ordinances submitted by the Caroline Senates. With that, uh, do we have a motion to approve this item? Motion to approve. Thank you. Uh a second. Um we had a couple of invitees here today to discuss in more detail this item. Uh we have uh former representative Jess Stella and also former chair of the appointments commission, Steve Gars. Um the appointments, okay? Marjorie. Do you have any any opening um remarks? Well, the appointments commission, this is the reason why I voted it was necessary, something that was losing from the uh I've been, I was like the chair mentioned I was on the board of reps. So on the 29th board towards the end of it on the 30th board. Um I used to go to the appointments committee. And so many times the appointments committee, we used to always hear this is the only candidates submitted the name. This is the best candidate that we have that that's been selected. So I decided on the 30th board to actually have um a review on the process. In the very beginning, some you know, some of the people felt like there was no necessary reason to have uh review, and I thought it was I thought differently at the time. We had a review, and to make a long story short, I felt that we're taking the word of one person. The person that um was in charge of was Marty Lamine at the time, and nothing to to nothing against them. I just I've always felt that government should be transparent. I should not take the word of anyone, just simply because they're telling me this is what's what's going on. This is the best person that's been selected, and again, based on whom. So with that, the more I kept digging into it, the more I felt like I think it was at this point. We do need transparency. There's got to be a system where the public gets to know how the process works, how it's moved forward, and and the more I kept digging into it, the more I it really happened. Um I also discussed about the fact of we have a Democratic Party and we have a Republican Party. What happens if you're not an affiliate? What happens here if you're some other party member, the working class, whatever whatever party might you might be associated with, or you may be a Democrat or Republican but chooses not to go to DCC or the RTC or anyone else, but wants to be able to submit their name. How would you do that? And the only way you can is to have a commission that a commission is based on the fact that is open to the people, and does at the same time produce a way of having some sort of transparency for everyone. Steve Steve took over as chair. Um I forgot I forgot exactly when he went when he was selected, but the appointments commission never had a chance on the on the 31st board to actually do what it was supposed to do. We're supposed to be in a nine-member board, and out of the nine, we only had three people, three civilians that were selected. The chair resigned, and the vice chair that left us with no quorum and nowhere to form a meeting without right now. You're the chair, right? You have to have someone that presides over a meeting. You cannot preside, but vote on anything, but you don't have a chair or vice chair, and unless and not have quorum. And the only reason why we started establishing quorum also is because I asked if the two members of the board of refs representatives, there was one word budget, and one Democrat at the time in the very beginning of conception, we weren't allowed to vote. And I asked, I need to we need to change that. And by doing so, we were at time towards when Steve came on and you got Jackie Pioli, because prior to that we didn't have that. We had three people on the board. So how effective is a board of commissioning ever going to have you know do anything of substance if there wasn't members to begin with.
openpublica.com