The Community Services Commission on July 14 debated a revised 2025 work plan that staff said was rewritten to align with City Council priorities, prompting heated discussion about the commission’s advisory role, communication gaps with staff and council, and the removal of previously adopted work-plan items. A commissioner announced they would resign effective at the end of the meeting; a second commissioner said they would resign as well.

The work-plan review opened when Community Services Director Lucy Hakobian told commissioners, “This is our opportunity to correct that and move forward with clarity and purpose,” and said the draft before the commission had been revised after meetings with the mayor and city manager to align with council priorities.

Why it matters: commissioners said the revised plan narrowed the commission’s practical role and removed items they had spent months developing, including proposals related to the golf course, youth services and other community programs. Commissioners said the change undercuts the commission’s advisory function and leaves volunteer members without clear direction; staff and council leaders said the revisions reflect the boundary between operational staff work and advisory commission work.

Most important facts
- Staff presented a draft work plan that Director Lucy Hakobian and staff described as aligned with the City Council’s 2025 priorities and intended to guide the commission through February 2026.
- Several commissioners said items they had developed over the prior months were removed, and that the commission had not been informed in advance of the change. Commissioners cited youth services, the golf course operator oversight, the stables and senior-center topics as examples.
- Commissioners repeatedly raised communication concerns; one commissioner said the change felt “top down” and that commissioners had been “blindsided.” Staff acknowledged communication lapses and described the revision as an effort to focus commission effort where it best fits council priorities and staff capacity.
- During the meeting one commissioner announced they would resign effective at the end of the meeting; another commissioner said they would also resign. The comments were made in the public meeting but were not tied to a formal resignation filing at the meeting clerk’s desk during the record.

Discussion vs. decision
- Discussion: Commissioners and staff debated what belongs in a commission work plan versus staff operational responsibilities. Commissioners urged more active advisory roles, such as outreach and program recommendations; staff emphasized that the commission can review and provide recommendations but should not direct staff to perform operational work that is not on council priorities.
- Direction/assignment: Staff offered to post the prior (April) work plan as an additional document so commissioners could compare drafts, and staff said they would work with the chair and interested members to craft a revised draft for the next meeting.
- Formal action: Commissioner Lai moved to table approval of the proposed revised work plan and address it at the next meeting; Commissioner Weinberger seconded the motion. The motion to table the vote was made and seconded on the record and confirmed by the chair; staff agreed to bring the prior draft for comparison and to consider the commissioners’ suggestions.

Other details and context
- Commissioners asked for two tracks: (1) a staff-aligned work plan tied explicitly to City Council priorities (work staff can be resourced to support), and (2) a commission-generated list of recommendations and initiatives the commission may pursue on its own (or ask council for priority in future budget cycles) for items such as youth services gap analysis.
- Commissioners and staff discussed concrete next steps: place “review community services programs and make recommendations” on the monthly agenda (a broader item that could include youth and senior services), have the chair and one or two members meet with staff to draft a revised plan, and agendize a youth services gap discussion at a future meeting.
- Commissioners repeatedly noted a 30-minute general public comment limit at the start of the meeting and referenced Brown Act–style public-notice requirements when debating whether an item (the golf course operator discussion) could be added to the current posted agenda.

Meeting tenor and turnout
- The discussion ran long and was emotionally charged; several commissioners expressed frustration and disappointment with staff-council communication and with being removed from prior work the commission had developed. Staff and the mayor defended the intent to clarify roles and avoid directing staff to operational tasks outside council priorities.

What’s next
- The commission voted to table approval of the revised work plan and asked staff to post the April draft for side-by-side comparison. Staff said it will work with the chair and willing commissioners to prepare a revised draft for the next regular meeting on Aug. 11, 2025. Commissioners asked that the commission keep a standing agenda item to review community services programs and that the commission begin a youth services gap analysis in the near term.

Attribution note: Several comments in the meeting were not attributable to a clearly identified speaker in the transcript; this article paraphrases those remarks as unattributed per the meeting record.