Commission → Liaison → City Manager: Respecting the Chain of Communication

[Adam Benefield]

Council,

I have read many of the same emails that prompted Mr. West’s message today. May I offer some advice, and in return ask for your feedback?

Lago Vista operates under a Council–Manager form of government. As a general rule:

1. City Council provides policy direction.
2. The City Manager is the chief executive who oversees staff and implements Council policy.
3. Boards and Commissions are advisory to the Council and their chairs do not have authority to direct staff.

To borrow a phrase from Councilman Prince: “Everyone can be right.” I believe our commission chairs have the best intentions and are working diligently to keep agendas and work plans moving forward. However, in practice, messages to the City Manager can sometimes carry undertones that complicate collaboration, even when the concern itself may be valid.

The most effective and Charter-consistent process is:

Commission Chair → Council Liaison → City Manager

This ensures elected officials remain the policy channel, concerns are conveyed consistently, and unnecessary email traffic to the City Manager is reduced.

This does not mean a chair can never communicate directly with the City Manager such as routine, factual, or administrative matters (such as scheduling or document requests) may be appropriate. But any concerns, requests, or direction must flow through the liaison. This preserves accountability and protects staff from conflicting instruction.

For example:

• A Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission would route concerns through their Council liaison.
• A Chair of the Building & Standards Commission would route concerns through their Council liaison.
• A Chair of the Board of Adjustment would route concerns through their Council liaison.

Likewise, if a councilmember has a concern about a commission, it should be addressed through the liaison or the council body, not directly with staff or commissioners. This respects the liaison role and prevents confusion.

As a standard practice, the City Manager and City Attorney should only respond to emails that come from:

• A Council member with the liaison copied, or
• The liaison directly.

This protects staff time, reduces confusion, and ensures that requests are recognized as official and coming through the proper channel. Exceptions may be made for purely administrative or logistical matters, but substantive concerns should always flow through Council.

Why This Matters:

• Maintains clear lines of authority (Council sets policy → City Manager executes).
• Prevents staff from being pulled in different directions by unelected commission members.
• Preserves the advisory role of commissions while keeping liaisons fully informed.
• Respects the process, staff, liaisons, and commissioners.
• Provides clarity for chairs and commissioners while reducing the stress of numerous, scattered emails.

Bypassing the liaison and going directly to staff or commissioners may be faster, but it is not the correct way. If this Council is going to be cohesive and retain good staff talent, we must consistently follow the rules of our Charter, our adopted policies and procedures, and our code of ethics.

I strongly advise that every newly elected Council member receive formal training on:

• The Council–Manager form of government.
• Executive sessions and their legal limits.
• The roles and responsibilities of liaisons.
• Proper channels of communication with staff and commissions.

This will help ensure consistency, reduce misunderstandings, and protect both staff and Council from unintentional Charter violations.

Adam C. Benefield