Minutes 11-08-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

22 Commissioner Rich said yes she could, but this is just a recommendation to find out 1 more about all applicants in a consistent way. 2 Chair Dorosin said this came up because everyone does not call applicants, and some 3 of the Board of County Commissioners felt that the recommendations from the advisory boards 4 may not be the best appointee for the Board of County Commissioners to appoint. 5 Chair Dorosin said he is loathe adding another level of bureaucracy to the process, but it 6 may be helpful to those that do not do their due diligence. He said Commissioners do not 7 always have the same information, and this suggestion seems to be a way to create a 8 consistent approach to knowing more about applicants. 9 Commissioner McKee said he does not think this suggestion will solve all of those 10 problems, and the more levels added to the application process, the more laborious it becomes, 11 and likely the fewer applicants the Board will receive. 12 Commissioner Price asked if this would only apply to the boards listed in the suggestion. 13 Chair Dorosin said it could apply to any board/commission. 14 Commissioner Price said she could see value in some of these boards having a deeper 15 dive investigation by the BOCC, but if boards are already vetting applicants she would have a 16 hard time going behind their backs and doing more vetting. She said she would favor either the 17 advisory board or the BOCC doing the vetting, but not necessarily both. 18 Chair Dorosin said the BOCC already has occasions when it rejects the 19 recommendation of the advisory board. 20 Commissioner Price said yes, and she is not left with good feelings when that happens. 21 Commissioner Marcoplos said the BOCC often lacks information on their applicants, and 22 a deeper level of vetting would likely be helpful in that regard, but this suggestion would involve 23 a lot of time, and is unsure how the BOCC would choose which boards to vet. 24 Chair Dorosin said the BOCC has already done this to some extent with the additional 25 questions on the boards that have fiduciary responsibilities. 26 Commissioner Marcoplos said the vetting duo could take the recommendations from the 27 boards and confirm or repudiate. He suggested experimenting for 6 months, see how it goes, 28 and then evaluate. 29 Commissioner Jacobs said at one point the BOCC made the list based on the boards 30 that had fiduciary responsibilities. He said it could be limited to that, with the addition of the 31 Board of Adjustment. 32 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the BOCC receives recommendations from boards 33 that do not have fiduciary responsibilities. 34 Commissioner Jacobs said yes, but there is more riding on the boards with fiduciary 35 responsibility, and it is hard to talk about this in public for fear of casting dispersions on anyone. 36 He said concerns could be pursued privately, allowing informed recommendations to be made 37 publicly. 38 Commissioner Burroughs said Commissioner Jacobs is at the heart of the problem, as 39 there is often knowledge about applicants, but it is uncomfortable to share in public. She said 40 the solution is for board members to read the appointments in the packet early on, and let their 41 colleagues know of any concerns. 42 Chair Dorosin suggested having appointments once a month or quarterly, as a main 43 agenda item, and if anyone has any reason to hold an appointment, then this appointment could 44 be referred to the two-person sub-committee, and come back on the next meeting. He said the 45 Commissioner with concerns can share them with the two-person sub-committee. 46 Chair Dorosin said appointments need to be moved up, or made into more of an item on 47 the agenda, as opposed to an afterthought at the end of a meeting. 48 Commissioner Jacobs said there is also the issue of filling vacancies when there is an 49 applicant but no recommendation form the advisory board. He said the two-person committee 50