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.