BEAG Meeting Summary 032521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 Group Member Boucher inquired about the work-around the Group was attempting to address in recognition of District 1 having nine representatives and District 2 having six representatives and how that unevenness was created. Mr. Wilder shared the process the County pursued to solicit applications from residents interested in serving on the BEAG. The Board of Commissioners then reviewed all the applications and selected the Group members to appoint and balance the Group based on various criteria that could include geographical location in the County, gender, population distribution in the County, and other factors. Group Member Hazirjian commented that she would appreciate additional comments from District 2 representatives on the possible parameters for a super-majority threshold for making decisions. Group Member Jenkins asked if members could use a phone to call in to a meeting and to vote, and it was noted that the virtual framework did allow for the use of a phone to participate and vote, with County Attorney Roberts adding that it was permissible provided the phone caller could be heard by everyone. County Attorney Roberts also noted that actual attendance at the meeting was required in order to vote on any items. Group members discussed several factors related to approval of an item by a super- majority plus additional votes in support. Group Member Bremer suggested that a standard of approval for major decision items be at least sixty (60) percent of Group members present at the meeting and at least two members from District 1 and at least two members from District 2 voting in support. Multiple Group members voiced support for the proposal. Group Member Williams motioned that the standard of approval for major decision items be at least sixty (60) percent of Group members present at the meeting including at least two members from District 1 and at least two members from District 2 voting in support. Additionally, items such as approval of minutes and adjourning a meeting would only require a simple majority of members present. Group Member Catterall seconded the motion. Judge Bryan called for any discussion on the motion. Group Member Susana Dancy indicated that she would not be voting on the item since she was not present for all of the discussion. There was no other discussion. Group members then voted by raised hand and roll call on the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Judge Bryan recognized Group Member Dancy to introduce herself since that had not been possible at the beginning of the meeting. Group Member Dancy shared some brief comments with the Group. 5. Discussion on Process to Elect Co-Chairs