Raleigh committee opens formal review of city boards and commissions, directs staff to survey members and draft bylaws template

At a meeting of Raleigh’s special committee to review boards and commissions, Assistant City Manager Evan Raleigh said the panel would “address and review the boards and commissions and their function” and asked members to define the scope of work and priorities for staff follow-up.

The committee directed staff to prepare a short survey of current and recent board members, produce a standard bylaws template and guidance for council liaisons, and return with targeted information about several boards that committee members flagged for deeper review. Tyisha Mosley of the community engagement department told the group, “You all have 29 different boards of commissions on the city's website. There are 26 available on Granicus … And of those, 20 are supported by the community engagement department. 16 of those are advisory, which is where I believe a lot of your conversation will take place … and then 4 of them are quasi judicial.”

Why this matters: council members said the review is meant to make volunteer service clearer and more effective, reduce redundancy, and ensure boards’ work aligns with council priorities. Council members pressed for clearer expectations for council liaisons, more consistent bylaws and work plans, and better upfront information for applicants on time commitment and meeting frequency.

Discussion highlights

- Scope and priorities: Committee members framed three core questions for every board: why it was created, whether it is fulfilling that purpose, and where it should go next. Several council members said some boards have “morphed” over time and that clarifying purpose could lead to consolidation or reorganization.

- Boards flagged for closer review: council members identified Community Engagement (the panel created after CACs were disbanded), Fair Housing Hearing Board, Police Advisory Board, Substance Abuse / Substance Use board, Human Relations Commission, Hispanic & Immigrant Affairs Board, and Historic Cemeteries (potentially merged with Historic Resources) as areas for focused follow-up.

- Staff-driven vs. externally governed bodies: Mosley and other staff noted a distinction between the roughly 16 advisory boards the community engagement department supports and many other entities (e.g., municipal service districts, CACs, Sister Cities) where the city’s bylaws or appointment authority differ. Staff said the committee’s initial scope is the advisory boards supported by community engagement, while recognizing other boards may merit later review.

- Possible mergers and structure: Wayne Miles of the Engineering Services Department cautioned against automatically combining bodies with overlapping topics: “I do believe that combining [Stormwater Management Advisory Commission] with the Environmental Advisory Board could dilute their ability to focus on their primary mission,” he said, noting stormwater’s heavy, technical workload. At the same time, several council members urged staff to ask boards whether they would support mergers (for example, historic cemeteries with historic resources) or whether those boards prefer to remain separate but coordinate more closely.

- Liaison roles and expectations: Council members said expectations for council liaisons have varied over time. One member summarized common guidance as “go as you need it” but asked for a clearer policy or best-practices memo so liaisons and chairs know how frequently liaisons should meet with boards and what level of involvement is expected.

- Outreach and member feedback: The committee asked staff to develop a survey instrument for current board members and to include recent exit-survey feedback from members who resigned. Staff agreed to propose a recurring pulse survey (for example, every two years) to monitor board health over time.

- Bylaws and templates: Staff reported they have begun work on a uniform bylaws template and offered to return with a draft that boards could adopt or amend to create greater consistency across advisory groups.

- Plenary or cross‑board convenings: Multiple council members suggested a periodic plenary or leadership summit for board chairs and staff liaisons to foster cross-collaboration and help boards choose topics where they can add meaningful input (for example, transit projects touching public‑health or substance‑use concerns).

Decisions and directions

- Staff was directed to draft and circulate a member survey instrument, including exit-survey responses, to gather whether members feel they are fulfilling their board’s mission and what barriers they face (direction to staff; no formal vote recorded).

- Staff was asked to draft a uniform bylaws template and recommended liaison best practices for the committee’s review.

- Staff will provide the committee with written summaries (work plans and current bylaws) for the boards identified for focused review (Fair Housing Hearing Board, Police Advisory Board, Substance Abuse board, Community Engagement, Historic Cemeteries/historic resources) and explain overlaps with state processes where relevant.

- The committee tentatively set its next full meeting in the second council meeting in May and specifically discussed returning on May 20 to continue the review; committee members asked that the meeting not start earlier than 9:30 a.m. to accommodate schedules.

What staff will return with

Staff agreed to return with: a proposed survey instrument and findings (including exit feedback), a uniform bylaws template, a list distinguishing advisory boards supported by community engagement from other entities, and targeted materials on the boards the committee named for further review.

Ending

The committee’s review will continue at its next scheduled meeting on the second council meeting in May (May 20 was discussed). Staff said they will bring the requested materials and draft policies back to the committee to inform any decisions about consolidations, renamings, or formal changes to bylaws or appointment processes.