Recommendation for Dissolution of Committee and Board Liaisons

[Amanda Chavarria]

Good evening,

As this is my first discussion board post, please grant me some grace if it is a bit "long-winded". I wanted to make sure that my opinion was properly conveyed without taking up too much time on the dias.

As many of you have probably viewed the upcoming agenda packet, you may be aware of the recommendation from Charles West regarding the dissolution of committee and board liaison positions. I am including my opinion and opposition to his recommendation here, but I am looking forward to a thoughtful discussion from all members of council.

I want to be absolutely clear about the critical importance of maintaining council liaisons to our boards, committees, and advisory groups. These positions are not ceremonial and are not "optional". They are a fundamental component of effective governance and a widely recognized best practice across Texas municipalities.

Removing liaisons would create a significant breakdown in communication between the Council and the very committees that exist to advise us. Our boards do not operate in a vacuum, and they should not be left to interpret the Council’s priorities without proper context. A liaison provides that context, ensures consistency, and prevents disconnects that can lead to costly delays, misunderstandings, and misguided recommendations. Stripping away liaison roles would severely limit the Council’s ability to engage with the work being done at the advisory level. It would impede collaboration, isolate volunteers, and create an unnecessary, and frankly harmful barrier between decision-makers and the community members who serve on these boards. These volunteers deserve access to their elected representatives. Removing liaisons sends the exact opposite message: that their input matters less, and that the Council is choosing to operate at arm’s length rather than in partnership.

This Council cannot afford to be blindsided by recommendations that lack alignment with our strategic goals simply because the established communication structure was removed. The liaison system exists precisely to prevent this. It maintains transparency, continuity, and accountability. Eliminating it would undermine all three.

Most Texas cities, including those smaller than Lago Vista, understand the importance of this structure. They recognize that councils, boards, and staff must function as interconnected parts of a single system. Removing liaisons would fracture that system and compromise our effectiveness as a governing body. I have conducted a best-practice and SOP cross study as well as a statistical analysis to comparing metrics of cities against Lago Vista. The cities are of similar size, density and demographics in order to substantiate my position. I have researched this at great length and look forward to discussing my findings and sources if any of you are interested.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose any action or policy that attempts to remove or diminish council liaison assignments. Doing so would not serve the Council, the staff, the volunteers, or, most importantly, the residents of Lago Vista. If there is a concern regarding undue influence or impropriety - that is a completely different animal and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. We have policies in place to handle this situation if it ever happens to arise. Let's not " throw the baby out with the bath water".

-Amanda

 

[Adam Benefield]

Amanda,

Great post and you've raised several excellent points. I’d like to review the information you gathered, especially the best-practices comparison because the partnership you described between Council and our volunteers is something I value as well. Ensuring those individuals feel supported and have access to elected representatives absolutely resonates.

I’ve also spoken with a nearby mayor whose city no longer uses council liaisons, and they’ve had a very positive experience. It seems to be an increasingly common structure, particularly in larger communities where staff capacity is higher. I can see how that setup might reduce the risk of unintentional ethics issues for council members and potentially free up significant time for us to serve the community in other ways like attending events, preparing more thoroughly for meetings, and engaging directly with residents. I think it also signals a level of trust in our City Manager and staff.

With that said, I do recognize the concern that eliminating liaisons could create blind spots or unintended consequences if not handled carefully. Oversight, communication, and alignment are crucial, regardless of the structure we choose.

I’m genuinely looking forward to a healthy discussion on this. The liaison model is the only one I’ve personally worked under, so I naturally lean toward what I know but I don’t want to dismiss alternative approaches that other cities are using with apparent success.

 

[Amanda Chavarria]

Thank you, Adam, for your response. I will be happy to provide the information! I have a few spreadsheets and reports that I'm in the process of tidying up to ensure the proper sources are cited/linked. I will email them to everyone before the council meeting. A few of the cities I reviewed in Texas that have resorted to this style of governance are rooted in a significant history of impropriety, lawsuits, and boundaries being consistently tested. This is not an up-and-coming trend; this is a rare occurrence and seemingly very isolated to communities with a very jaded history of governance. These issues arose from poor policies and/or failure to follow them, the data and sources I reviewed are quite interesting to say the least.

A few more thoughts-

Lago Vista is a council–manager city, so day-to-day administration is rightly with the City Manager. But liaisons are one of the few structured places where policymakers are present during advisory discussions without directing staff.

If liaisons are removed, the only consistent conduit from boards/committees to Council becomes staff. Are we prepared for the over-time costs of this burden?

Additionally, Staff (and by extension, the City Manager) gain more control over:

• What recommendations are highlighted,
• How they are framed
• Which items move quickly and which quietly stall.

What a City Council Liaisons role should be (in my opinion):

• Serve as a two-way communication bridge between Council and the board/committee.
• Listen, observe, and bring context back to Council – not run the meeting or direct staff.
• Help ensure Council priorities and goals are understood by the board.
• Provide on-the-record updates to the public during liaison report items at council meetings

What happens if we eliminate the roles:

• Council loses first-hand insight into board discussions and only sees staff-filtered summaries.
• Nuance, minority viewpoints, and early warning signs from boards are more likely to be lost.
• Council votes risk being less aligned with the actual concerns and recommendations of volunteers.

Impact on Board/Committee Morale & Recruitment:

• Volunteers may feel their work goes into a black hole with no visible council connection.
• Harder to recruit and retain members when they don’t see a direct line to their elected officials.
• Removes an elected person in the room who can at least hear and carry forward concerns.

Shift in Power Toward Staff & City Manager:

• Staff becomes the sole, consistent conduit of information between boards and Council.
• Increased perception, and possibly reality of centralized control in the administrative side.
• Ironically, a move intended to “reduce micromanagement or undue pressure by council” may magnify the influence of staff over what reaches the dais and how it’s framed.

Reduced Transparency & Public Trust:

• Public loses a clear, visible sign that Council is plugged into advisory work.
• Fewer liaison reports = less visibility into what boards and committees are doing.
• Feeds the narrative that boards are “just for show” and that citizen input is easier to ignore.

I look forward to further discussion, and as always, when provided with data that supports a better solution, I will be more than willing to review it with an open mind and adjust my position.

 

[Karen Van Ness]

Thank you Amanda for your thorough research on this topic / proposal. I'm open to learning more about how our City Manager and staff think this will work, and work better, than the current liaison framework. However, I share your concerns about negating the benefits of direct access to council members by our committees and commissions. A few things are top of mind for me:

(1) I understand this proposal was precipitated by concerns about potential legal liability for council members liaising specifically with the BoA, since this is a quasi-judicial / legal body. I would like to learn more about how we might adapt reporting from this Board to help mitigate this potential exposure. It could be that we eliminate the direct council - BoA liaison position while ensuring adequate reporting to council.

(2) We have upped our game in terms of key staff positions so I can understand the proposal to enable staff to liaise with our commissions and committees, as they often can provide specific information and updates the committees / commissions need. However, I am concerned about losing the direct council dialogue. We would have to establish a more formal system / schedule of reporting by these committees / commissions to city council than seems to be the case today.

(3) What can we as a Council do to help mitigate the potential "influence" a liaison might have on a commission / committee? Charles brings up a key point about the importance of not unduly influencing or directing the deliberations of any commission or committee. The liaison is there to liaise, not to influence. Do we have sufficient ordinances / code in place to help enforce this? As well as a reporting mechanism for instances where a commission or committee chair or member believes such influence or direction is occurring?

Look forward to a good discussion...

 

[Shane Saum]

Good evening Councilors. I’m really glad to see our new members jumping right into the discussion board. This is exactly what I hoped for when I first pushed for us to use it two years ago, and I think it can be one of our best tools for preparing for meetings. Thank you all for engaging here.

Thank you all for the thoughtful points. I want to share a few clarifications after reviewing our own Rules of Procedure and considering how this functions in practice.

First, the concern about losing direct council involvement is understandable, but our rules already limit what liaisons can do. Section 7.8 of the RoP makes it clear that liaisons are not members of the committee, cannot influence recommendations, and must avoid even the appearance of doing so. Their role is limited to factual clarification and listening. That means most of what people are describing as “benefits of a liaison” are things any council member can already do simply by attending a meeting.

We do not lose access by removing liaisons. Every council member can still attend any committee meeting, listen to discussion, and engage the chair or staff afterward if clarification is needed. Committee members can also reach out to any of us as citizens, and they regularly watch our meetings the same way we watch theirs. The flow of communication continues.

On the staffing questions: committees already rely heavily on staff liaisons for agenda support, technical guidance, training, and process management. Staff bring recommendations to the council regardless of whether a liaison is present. Eliminating the council liaison role does not add new responsibilities for staff so much as it formalizes the system that already exists.

I also want to be honest about something I have seen repeatedly. The liaison role creates ambiguity and tension because expectations differ from person to person. We have had situations where liaisons are criticized for saying too much, others for saying too little, and some for asking the wrong questions. When the rules require us to be present but not influence anything, it puts council members in a position where they can easily be second-guessed. Removing the liaison role removes that friction and keeps the focus where it belongs: on preparing for our own policy work at council meetings.

Regarding the idea that volunteers would feel disconnected: I don’t believe we give them less support by eliminating the liaison title. We can still attend their meetings. We can still meet with chairs and members at any time. We can still invite them to give their annual reports in public. We can even strengthen that reporting structure if needed. The relationship is not tied to a title.

Finally, on the quasi-judicial issue: the Board of Adjustment is the one place where the legal risk is real, and that alone is enough reason to rethink the current model. If council wants to keep liaisons elsewhere while removing that one, I understand that argument too.

I’m not opposed to liaisons in principle. I’m simply saying that in practice the difference between having a liaison and simply attending meetings is much smaller than it appears, because our rules already keep us from doing most of what people think liaisons do. If the council decides to remove the formal role, I believe we can still maintain strong communication, participation, and transparency without it.

Happy to discuss more at the meeting.

 

[Adam Benefield]

When I spoke with staff, the recommendation was not focused on the Board of Adjustment. Their suggestion was to remove all council liaison positions. The specific examples they raised were about issues on the Planning & Zoning, not BOA. Section 7.8 applies across the board, so if there is ambiguity, tension, or second-guessing around what a liaison should or shouldn’t do, that is a structural issue with the liaison model itself, not something unique to any one commission.

Because of that, I cannot support a carve-out approach where BOA alone loses its liaison. Especially when there has been zero evidence of an issue with our current BOA liaison, I’m not comfortable singling that commission out as the only one to lose the role.

At the same time, I think Karen and Amanda have raised some very valid points about communication, support for volunteers, and how connected our boards feel to council. I’ve also had several individuals reach out today who are concerned about what eliminating liaisons would mean in practice. I don’t know yet whether all of those concerns are fully warranted, but I do believe they’re worth taking seriously before we make a change.

I want to support staff and I understand their desire for clarity and consistency. I’m just not there yet on fully eliminating the liaison role.

 

[Charles West]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the use of liaisons. Each of you has raised valid points regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. In my experience, cities I have worked with did not utilize liaisons; however, staff will follow the direction provided by Council.

At this time, I am prepared to compile a list of pros and cons but will refrain from offering public opinion until I have had more time to review the points raised. One observation I would like to share is that while we seem aligned in principle, we should avoid adhering to the mindset of “this is how it has always been done.”

Clear, open, and transparent communication is essential. Based on your comments, many of you believe liaisons can help achieve this for boards and commissions. My only recommendation at this stage is to ensure that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in a written policy, which can be easily implemented.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Mr. West, the list of badges beneath your name is impressive. I agree 100% that we should remain open to your recommendations and if it's decided to keep the liaison have the written policy. Thank you.

 

[Adam Benefield]

I thought a list of all the committees that may need a liaison appointment at the next city council meeting should be compiled. I know this is not a complete list and welcome your additions:

Keep Lago Vista Beautiful
Lago Vista Property Owners Association
Lago Vista ISD
Building Subcommittee
Recommendation to create a Friends of the Parks Committee
Charter Review Committee
TX DOT
Cap Metro
Is there one for the LCRA? if not may be wise to create.

 

[Karen Van Ness]

Adam - At one time established a "Lago Vista Friends of the Parks" non-profit that was stood up by members of PRAC. Not sure the committee ever put the structure to good use. I would suggest if we want to re-animate we do this under the purview of PRAC and its members. Coordination with PRAC and our Parks and Rec Director would be critical. From previous experience and advice, a general "support the parks" approach was not as salient as targeting fundraising toward specific items or objectives, such as an amenity at Sunset Park or one of the smaller parks. I love the idea! I think with the momentum we are seeing with our terrific new Parks & Rec Director and the completion and opening of the Turnback Canyon Phase 1 trail, along with our changing demographics in Lago (more families with kids and youth), we might have better success with interest and fundraising.

 

[Adam Benefield]

I certainly love the idea of not re-inventing the wheel. If there is a process already in place, I support leaning into that.

 

[Karen Van Ness]

Agreed! As I dialogue with our PRAC Chair and our Parks & Rec Director, I'll be able to get updated on where they left the LV Friends of the Parks entity - I think it would be fairly straightforward to start it up again.