As a former City Council advisory board member, I’d like to share some thoughts on some of the trigger issues that brought our boards to the brink of dissolution or unproductive merging with other commissions. Council members frequently present detailed analysis of the pros and cons of many of their projects, but seem to be unwilling to present an analysis on this critical issue.
Foremost is the fact that the Council is considering dissolving one of the few hard-won inroads of transparency into board decision-making. While there are many issues surrounding the operation of advisory boards, I see three issues that stand out.
Issue 1: Advisory board governance. In the way of background, the boards are overseen by a designated Council member, including the mayor. The Council solicits board members via open announcements and subsequent vetting, acceptance and appointment of suitable candidates to individual boards. At this point, the transparency of advisory board members’ responsibilities and conduct become murky. Most boards elect a chairperson and deputy chairperson. However, this process is either not adequately addressed by existing Council governance policies or these policies have not been established. Some boards’ chair selections are heavily influenced by Council oversight, which is inappropriate given that an advisory board should not be subject to Council manipulation.
Further, Mayor Barbara Noseworthy was quoted in The Durango Herald on Tuesday as saying, “a councilor is accused of attending and participating in an advisory board meeting for which that person is not a liaison to, a possible violation of the city’s code of ethics.”
Advisory board members are not adequately briefed on Council policies with respect to how boards conduct their business under existing inadequate governance policies. Current Council practices allow governing councilors to manipulate board structure and create a board that is more likely to rubber stamp Council initiatives. As Council representatives are assigned as liaisons, it appears that such manipulation would be a violation of ethics. I have also noted the Council representatives tend to drive or regulate board members’ request for discussion, thereby, limiting advisory board insight into issues. I recall one instance where my request for further discussion of a still-pending issue was denied by the Council representative who stated that the issue had been “thoroughly reviewed,” despite that the discussion had occurred previously to my joining that board.
Potential Mitigation Strategies: The Council should establish clear and transparent governance policies that address at a minimum: 1. roles of Council representatives; 2. guides to conducting business; 3. define boundaries of influence between Council representatives and board leadership elections. For example, do advisory board members independently nominate and elect board leadership or will Council representatives drive the process?
Issue 2: Why the rush? Current Councilors will not transition to the new Council. Why this issue is on the current Council’s agenda is a mystery. Common sense would dictate the new, incoming Council be allowed to consider this issue.
Issue 3: Council should invest in advisory board members: Current advisory boards function under the 80/20 rule, where 20% of the members are very active in discussing the issues, while the remaining 80% typically do not engage until their vote is required. This disparity may represent multiple reasons. But I have observed that the active 20% have jobs or experience that provide them with the critical thinking skills required to methodically assess the issues presented. There would be very little cost associated with offering voluntary training to sitting board members to build their critical thinking and analytical skills, and potentially add value to board discussions.
Mearl Webb lives in the Durango area. Webb has recently retired as an executive with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
