Agenda 02-17-2026; 8-a - Minutes for January 16, 2026 Retreat and January 20, 2026 Business Meeting

Browse Search

35 1 Commissioner Portie-Ascott sought clarification about counting cancelled meetings. She 2 shared that she is aware of concerns from Planning Board members who worried that cancelled 3 meetings would count against them if they'd already missed meetings. 4 Tara May explained the suggested change would base calculations on meetings actually 5 held. 6 Chair Hamilton noted the policy language that states the Board "may remove" members 7 for "neglect of duty or non-participation that becomes problematic to the advisory board's 8 functioning and purpose." She questioned whether the board wanted hard rules or to maintain the 9 qualifying language about problematic impact. 10 Commissioner Bedford said she raised the issue about attendance after noticing Planning 11 Board members with poor attendance during important votes. She said she then requested 12 attendance records for the Planning Board and saw multiple violations of the current policy. She 13 argued against discretionary removal to avoid perceptions of favoritism. She said that in cases 14 where members have a temporary issue, they are always able to reapply, citing an example of a 15 member who resigned due to health issues and then successfully reapplied when he was able. 16 Tara May explained staff's current practice when attendance violations are noticed. She 17 said that staff reach out to members who have not had satisfactory attendance to identify any 18 potential barriers and offer solutions like virtual attendance options, transportation, etc. She said 19 in most cases, when a member is unable to improve attendance with a county-offered solution, 20 they accept the opportunity to resign instead of being removed. She sought clarity on whether the 21 Board preferred automatic removal or continued flexibility. 22 Discussion revealed split opinions on "may" versus "will" remove, with some preferring 23 flexibility and others wanting consistency. 24 Commissioner Carter suggested formalizing a grace period process where staff engage 25 members at risk of removal, offering an opportunity to comply before removal. 26 Tara May said that she would be happy to suggest some wording to capture that 27 suggestion if the Board agreed. 28 The board reached consensus on changing "may remove" to "will remove," removing the 29 qualifier, "that becomes problematic to the advisory board's functioning and purpose," modifying 30 the attendance requirement to 25% of meetings held over a 12-meeting period (excluding 31 cancelled meetings), and formalizing staff engagement when members are at risk with a grace 32 period before removal. 33 Commissioner Portie-Ascott raised whether the Board cared only about members' 34 attendance or also engagement when present. 35 Commissioners McKee, Fowler, and Greene agreed that engagement was too subjective 36 to define or enforce, with people having different styles of participation. 37 The Board concluded that attendance and voting constituted sufficient engagement, and 38 identified reappointment decisions as the appropriate time to consider broader participation 39 through recommendation letters and review of meeting minutes. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51