CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Members of Charlottesville’s City Council and the Police Civilian Oversight Board discussed paying volunteer oversight board members and other measures to overcome recruitment barriers at a Sept. 11 joint session, and city officials agreed to examine options and return recommendations to council.

Acting PCOB Chair Jeff Frasier urged council to help accelerate recruitment: “We’re really just dead in the water at the moment,” Frasier said, describing a long period when the board lacked enough appointees to reach quorum.

Councilors and staff identified practical barriers that have limited volunteer participation, including childcare, transportation and technology access. Several council members said those practical burdens likely deterred applicants for the board’s statutorily designated seats — for example, resident representation from public housing and communities historically subject to disparate policing.

City staff and the city manager discussed compensation as one lever to boost participation. City Manager John Sanders (as referenced in the meeting) and other staff described a phased approach: city staff and the city attorney’s office would examine legal authority, draft possible ordinance language, estimate cost implications, and propose a prioritized list of boards and commissions for phased implementation rather than an immediate, across‑the‑board change. The Virginia statute Va. Code § 15.2‑1411 was cited as relevant to compensation of advisory boards.

Multiple councilors urged that compensation be studied before changing other appointment criteria. “I would suggest the compensation be looked at first because we have heard, repeatedly, that it is impossible for some who really want to serve to be able to for just that reason alone,” one councilor said during the discussion and urged a staff‑led, phased plan.

Councilors also discussed other remedies that could lower barriers, such as offering childcare or reducing prescriptive membership categories in favor of preferred qualifications. Some members said any compensation plan should be phased and prioritized because adopting pay for one board could prompt requests from other advisory bodies.

City staff said they would return a report that would include legal analysis, comparators from other localities, cost estimates and proposed language for an ordinance change or council policy decision. Staff noted some available budget lines that have not been fully spent in prior years and said they could examine phased options to implement compensation without immediate large budget impacts.

Ending: Council did not adopt a compensation policy at the meeting. Instead, members requested staff and the city attorney to further analyze the legal pathways, budget implications and prioritization and to return proposals for council consideration.