Commission and Committee Appointments – Avoiding Overlap

[Adam Benefield]

I’d like to continue the discussion regarding appointments to our various commissions and committees. At present, we have the Building and Standards Commission (BSC), Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), Board of Adjustment (BOA), and the Charter Review Committee (CRC).

In general, I’m not in favor of appointing the same individual to multiple commissions or committees at the same time. We’ve already seen some challenges when members serve on multiple, which can create potential TOMA conflicts or at least the perception of impropriety, particularly when applicants are seeking variances or when workloads overlap between boards, such as in matters related to the drainage ordinance.

I recognize there are times when we have a shortage of qualified applicants, and in those situations, exceptions may make sense. However, as long as we continue to have more applicants than open seats, I believe we should take the opportunity to broaden participation and reduce exposure to procedural risks. This approach also allows more residents to engage in civic service and bring diverse perspectives to the table.

Two questions for discussion:

1. Do you agree or disagree with this approach? Please explain.
2. If you agree, are you in favor of implementing these adjustments where possible at the December 5th City Council meeting?

 

[Shane Saum]

Thank you, Councilman. I agree that our goal should be to avoid appointing the same individual to multiple commissions or committees at the same time. I’ve expressed that view over the past two years, and as you mentioned, the usual challenge is a limited number of applicants or volunteers already serving in multiple roles. I’m happy to reaffirm at our meeting on the 4th that we will do everything possible to prevent overlapping appointments. Moving forward, we can address this through the committee application process by adding a clear note that applicants may serve on only one commission or committee. I don’t believe this needs to be an ordinance, but it can easily be established as a standing policy in our applications.

 

[Paul Roberts]

I agree with the overall direction being discussed. The key concern is simultaneous service on multiple boards, particularly where subject matter overlaps. As we discussed from the dais on November 6, that structure increases the likelihood of cross-body deliberation, even unintentionally. With items like the drainage ordinance, height exceptions, “aggrieved person” provisions, and subdivision regulations moving through multiple bodies, it is clearer than ever that each board needs to maintain its own lane.

Addressing that is not about limiting participation; it’s about structuring participation well. We want to expand the number of people involved in civic service, while also welcoming former Council members and other experienced residents to continue contributing—just not in simultaneous roles on multiple decision-making bodies.

Put simply: the goal is broader engagement, not fewer engaged residents.

To that end, I support updating the application process to state that individuals may serve on only one board or commission at a time. That is a clean, straightforward solution that avoids overlapping quorums while still encouraging continued public service and continuity of experience.

Thank you all for the thoughtful discussion last week and here.