Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advisory Commissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms existing attendance process for commissioners, asks staff to improve notification on youth absences
Summary
Council members discussed youth commissioner absences and directed staff to follow existing ordinance practice — monitoring attendance and notifying council when thresholds are exceeded — while emphasizing flexibility and improved staff notification before reappointment decisions.
Roseville — Councilors July 14 reviewed attendance expectations for advisory commissioners, including youth commissioners, and directed staff to follow the existing ordinance process while improving communication to the council about absences prior to reappointment decisions.
What is in code: City staff and council reviewed the attendance provision in the city code that treats absences (excused or unexcused) consistently: if a commissioner misses three consecutive meetings or more than 30% of meetings in a 12‑month period, the staff liaison notifies the council. That notice does not automatically remove a commissioner; the council retains discretion on appointment or removal.
Council discussion and context: Council members emphasized the need for flexibility for youth commissioners — who may have school, transportation or family constraints — and to treat all commissioners consistently. Several members supported the ordinance as written but asked staff to reinvigorate existing procedures so the staff liaison and department provide timely notifications and engage commissioners before matters reach council consideration. Several members also noted youth commissioners are not appointed to quasi‑judicial bodies such as planning commission or police civil service.
Next steps: Staff said it will reinforce the attendance monitoring process, ensure liaison outreach before council notification and include attendance histories with reappointment materials. Council asked staff to treat youth commissioners with the same procedural checks and with sensitivity to age‑related constraints.
