Commission debate and public comments focus on pay for charter commissioners and public‑input provisions; amended proposal withdrawn for notice issues

Commissioners spent substantial time discussing two linked proposals on commissioner pay and on how the county sets elected officials’ salaries. Public commenters and commissioners also debated how the charter should require and record public input.

Commissioner Maya Morales introduced a reworked version of proposed amendment 11 that would remove language stating charter review commissioners “shall serve without salary” and would instead allow future charter review commissioners to be paid; the memo presented to the commission included two options and example math using multipliers of the state minimum wage and an alternative tied to the existing salary commission. Morales said the proposal aimed to reduce economic barriers for people who cannot afford unpaid public service and to offer a predictable framework for compensation.

Commissioner John Westerfield, a public speaker, opposed paying commissioners, saying the role was understood to be unpaid when people ran and that the unpaid status attracted volunteers who serve “in the purest form as an unpaid volunteer without hope for remuneration.” Westerfield told commissioners, “One of the reasons I ran for the position on this commission was the fact that it was an unpaid position.”

Morales moved to adopt the updated amendment 11 and was seconded; during debate Commissioner Ellenbosch raised a procedural point that the body must consider either the original timely‑submitted amendment or a properly noticed substitute and that the updated text had not met the Thursday‑before‑meeting notice requirement. Morales agreed the item had not been noticed to the standard and withdrew the motion so she can refile the revised language with appropriate notice. The motion was therefore withdrawn and no final vote on amendment 11 occurred.

Separately, Commissioner Andrew Redding said he had been revising amendment 10 after committee discussion and public input; he told the commission he would abandon plans that tied pay to state minimum wage because such a link could cause large, automatic increases if the state raised minimums. Redding said he will submit a different, simpler proposal at the next meeting and will circulate a draft to the commission in advance.

Staff outlined calendar constraints that influenced the deliberations: the commission must have final amendments ready in time for a July 10 meeting (finalization for the body) and the county council must vote to receive and transmit amendments to the auditor on July 22. Staff warned that the commission’s timeline for finalizing language was compressed and that pro‑ and con‑committee appointments and voter‑pamphlet deadlines would follow those transmission steps.

Other discussion in the meeting addressed the charter 's public‑input provisions. Public commenters urged easier ways to route input to council beyond initiatives and referenda—suggesting town halls, a help‑desk/ticketing system for constituent requests and stronger follow‑up when the commission or council receives public concern. Commissioners noted inconsistencies in the charter’s packet language about signature thresholds; legal staff clarified that the charter’s current language uses an 8% signature threshold tied to votes cast in the last regular gubernatorial election for at least one petition path, and the commission noted that mixed references to “general” versus “gubernatorial” elections in packet drafts created confusion that should be corrected.

Ending: Morales said she would refile the revised amendment with proper notice for the next meeting; Redding said he will circulate a simplified rewrite of amendment 10 before the next meeting. Commissioners scheduled committee work and signaled the commission will need clear, publicly posted math and examples if it plans to forward any pay‑related charter language to the council and voters.