The Prescott Valley Town Council voted 5-2 on Aug. 14 to replace the three‑member selection committee that screened candidates for town advisory boards and commissions with a staff‑led screening and recommendation process, council members said.

Supporters of keeping the committee said the change reduces public visibility of candidate interviews and could undercut trust; opponents of the committee said the current process can intimidate volunteers and that council retains final appointment authority.

The vote enacts Resolution 2025-2030, repealing prior Resolution 2025-2401 and setting new procedures under which department staff will screen and recommend candidates, the council will receive applications once staff has made a recommendation, and individual council members may still meet privately with applicants before the formal council vote. The council retains final appointment authority, council members said during debate.

Why it matters: Residents and frequent volunteers told the council they value the traditional selection‑committee interviews as a public check on appointments. Several public commenters argued the proposed change shifts the most consequential part of the process out of public view. Council proponents said the new procedure could make it easier for candidates to apply and reduce perceived intimidation in volunteer interviews.

Public comments at the start of the meeting set the tone for the debate. "This suggests a preference for closed‑door processes, which is disturbing," said Isabelle Cetacelles, who told the council the selection committee has operated since 1994 and was reaffirmed earlier this year. Sandy Graham, another resident, told the council that changing the selection process would worsen perceptions that decisions are made behind closed doors.

Council debate split along mixed lines. Councilmember Kiel urged retaining the selection committee and said she valued interviewing candidates directly; she also noted the committee will be placed under the clerk’s office and formalized to follow open‑meeting requirements if kept. Councilmember Frewing and others argued the revised process is worth trying because unpaid volunteers have reported feeling intimidated by the interview format and that staff has previously selected members for other community groups.

Vice Mayor Sircher proposed a procedural compromise that he said would increase transparency: new appointments would be brought before the council under "new business" for public review, with reappointments handled on the consent agenda. He also recounted that early versions of the committee were informal and that council has the final appointment power in any event.

The motion to authorize the mayor to sign Resolution 2025-2030 passed 5 to 2. The record of individual yes/no votes was not read into the transcript; the clerk announced the tally only.

The change takes effect with the new resolution; council members said applications will remain public and individual council members may continue to speak privately with applicants. The town attorney’s role in advising on open‑meeting compliance was raised by public commenters, who said the town attorney had confirmed the selection committee qualifies as a public body under Arizona law and must comply with open‑meeting requirements.

Council members and staff did not announce additional procedural steps or a timeline for implementing the new screening and posting procedures at the meeting.

Concluding note: The council adopted the resolution after roughly 30 minutes of public comment and internal discussion; some council members said the town may revert to the prior selection‑committee model if the new procedure proves ineffective.