First council members responded to some of the comments, noting that actually all 20 of the people who will be appointed to the board will be approved by the council, but 10 will be recommended by the mayor. Language was changed to clarify that, and to stipulate that a majority of board members would be city residents.
The major point of conflict in the committee was how much to specify about how the board would operate. Committee member Cathy Fahey, with support from Common Council president Shawn Morris, wanted to do things like give the board a time frame, specify how decisions were to be made (voting vs consensus, etc.), and specify certain topics the board should cover. Other committee members vocally disagreed, saying the board should be able to decide for itself how it would operate, with public input. Morris noted that other commissions the council has created had time frames, that bodies with no deadline often stagnate and don't complete their tasks, and that it's hard to ask someone to serve on a board if they don't know how long the commitment will be.
Fahey also agreed with those concerned about the presence of city employees on the board, and expressed a desire to have more information about how other cities have handled these questions before approving the legislation.
In the end it was agreed to add an "expected" time frame of 18 to 24 months to the legislation, but not to specify anything else about how the board might operate. A stipulation that a majority of board members be city residents was also added.
The revised legislation was passed out of committee to the full Common Council with a positive recommendation by a 4 to 1 vote, with Cathy Fahey voting against. (I will post the text of the revised legislation when I get it.)
Comments