[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Council reps on ad hoc committees

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues - Hi.  For some time, the CAC minutes have noted that I intended to write a note on this issue.  Since we have yet another such committee (OS master plan process) that apparently needs councilmembers, and since I essentially offered my thoughts on this at the previous council meeting, I thought I put those ideas in writing (and let us delete the ongoing note in the CAC minutes).

A bit of ancient history first, since it no doubt has helped created the admitted bias I have regarding such committees.  One of my early appointments was to the citizens committee on transportation, which was the forerunner to TAB.  Our job was to create the first-ever TMP, in particular a plan that took all modes of travel into account and created a realistic financial package for funding improvements and operations.  This was a small citizens committee, and council appointed one of its own to the group.  And, perhaps not surprisingly, this councilmember insisted on chairing the committee and essentially running the show.  So, for the first many, many months, due to both that and the key city staff member (who at the time didn't particularly like alt modes), we didn't accomplish much at all.  After many complaints, we got a new city staffer who was great, our council "liaison" mostly lost interest, and the committee fairly quickly accomplished its goal: producing a report that became the basis for the TMP that was adopted a year or two later.  I would only add that after this experience, council wisely decided to not appoint councilmembers to citizen committees - and so far as I can remember didn't do so for many years.

The fundamental problem, at least as I see it, is that staff is (overly) deferential to councilmembers, as are "ordinary" citizens who might compose such ad hoc committees.  Even a very careful councilmember will discover that his or her opinions carry extra weight - and a not-so-careful councilmember who wants to significantly affect the outcome will find it fairly easy to do so.

This problem is quite a bit less pronounced when the committee comprises only councilmembers, or some councilmembers plus some members of one of our advisory boards, although it doesn't entirely vanish.

I'm sure not everyone agrees with my description of the problems here, but I've seen too many examples of it over the years.  In fact, my strong preference is to never appoint a council "liaison" to any citizen committee and to be very cautious about creating even council/board committees.  But since the last few councils seem to prefer to create such committees, I'd like to offer a few suggestions that should help mitigate some of the (or at least, my) perceived concerns:


*         Except perhaps for the simplest and shortest of tasks, there should always be at least two council reps, not just one.

*         It then follows that, as much as possible, those two council reps should have differing views on the matter under consideration - even if it is just a process committee.  Council tends not to discuss such things when appointments are made (that's not a complaint; we trust each other and feel that each of us can and will do a good job, which is a very good thing indeed), but we need to deal with this politely and openly.

*         I would also add that I think it best if the council reps are not firmly/passionately on one side of the issue or the other or have a track record of staking out a certain position on the issues under consideration.

*         Importantly, the whole council should set very clear guidelines as to the role the council reps should have.  Again, this is far more important for citizen committees (where I think council reps should provide information as requested but not vote or take an active role), but still important for even council or council/board committees.  The council reps should not, in general, be there to push their particular point of view but to represent the entire council; yes, this can be hard to pull off, which is why at minimum there should be two council reps.

*         And the committee should check in regularly with the full council.  This could be as simple as a short written report in our information packet on a monthly basis, plus, for longer-running committees, a verbal check-in under Matters at least every few months.

*         Finally, I think that all councilmembers should get the chance to serve as reps on such committees, and those who have served on one during the two-year term (or even more obviously, have served on more than one) should yield to others who might be interested, assuming the other criteria can be met.

I'd note that the OS master plan process committee, as proposed, seems to incorporate a number of these ideas, but it will be up to council, of course, to select reps appropriately.

So...nothing particularly insightful here, just an opportunity to suggest that council explicitly consider these concepts - and be willing to discuss them openly - as new committees are formed.  And now that annoying reminder can be removed from the CAC minutes!

--Matt