Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lynn Haven reviews policy on board appointments, considers updates including advertising and liaisons
Summary
Commissioners reviewed ‘Policy 96’ governing board appointments, debated whether the Board of Adjustments should remain separate, and discussed adding a standard advertising period and clearer seat assignments; no policy changes were adopted at the pre‑commission meeting.
Lynn Haven commissioners discussed Policy 96, the city policy that governs how board and committee appointments are handled, and considered several updates including a mandatory advertisement period, seat assignments tied to commissioner seats, and the role of liaisons.
The review matters because the policy governs how citizens are nominated and appointed to boards such as the planning commission, board of adjustments and other advisory or decision‑making bodies.
City attorney Cole summarized the existing policy and said it appears to predate most current commissioners and likely needs updating. Commissioners raised changes they want to consider: a required advertisement period (staff described a typical two‑week, 14‑day posting used elsewhere, with an option for the commission to waive it for reappointments); explicit seat assignments that tie seats on certain boards to specific commissioners; clearer definitions distinguishing advisory committees from chartered boards; and a formal list of boards in the policy with cross‑references to the city charter where boards are established.
Commissioners also debated whether to dissolve the Board of Adjustments or consolidate its variance decision‑making with the planning board. Several commissioners noted the Board of Adjustments meets rarely — sometimes only once or twice a year — and questioned whether its functions could be combined with the planning board to reduce administrative cost and simplify public noticing. Others said keeping a separate Board of Adjustments preserves an additional decision‑making role for citizens and provides an appeal path to the commission.
The commission discussed liaison roles. Cole described two common approaches: appointing a commissioner as a voting member of an ad hoc or advisory committee, or appointing a commissioner as an ex‑officio, nonvoting liaison. Commissioners expressed a preference for nonvoting liaison attendance for many boards to avoid undue influence while preserving lines of communication.
Staff reported current vacancies for the Board of Adjustments and that advertisements are open through the end of the month; several applicants have applied. Commissioners requested staff include all applicants in the appointment packet when the vacancy window closes and suggested that contested appointments (multiple applicants) be moved to the regular agenda rather than being handled on the consent agenda so the commission can vote publicly. One commissioner recommended a ballot method for contested appointments — commissioners record their preferred candidate and the city manager reads votes aloud — to make choices transparent.
No policy changes were adopted at the pre‑commission meeting. Commissioners asked staff and the city attorney to draft revisions incorporating the advertising period, clearer seat‑assignment language, definitions of boards versus committees, and guidance on liaisons for future consideration.
