Nevada County CCP debates bylaws language on designees and strict rules for virtual attendance

At a meeting of the Nevada County Community Corrections Partnership, members discussed proposed bylaws language that would limit which positions may appoint designees to the CCP executive committee and clarified when members may participate remotely.

The debate centered on whether designees should be permitted only for constitutional officers named in statute or whether other member organizations may appoint nonvoting designees. Jeff (last name not provided), a staff member, summarized county counsel’s guidance and noted that Sacramento County’s roster shows designees but that the written bylaws and the statute appear to limit designees to specified offices. "Designees for the executive committee needs to the CCP executive committee are not permitted except for designees of constitutional offers officers," Jeff said, quoting the county counsel referral to penal code section 1230.1 language.

The discussion matters because allowing broad designee use would change who makes decisions at the executive level and because bylaws are the document that would govern budget, innovation funds and meeting procedures going forward. Several members urged caution and asked for a draft that codifies who may be a designee and how designees are appointed. Carrie Klein, public defender, and "Alex" (role not specified in the transcript) had raised questions at an earlier meeting, and county counsel (unnamed) had recommended limiting designees to those referenced by statute.

Members debated practical considerations. One participant observed that many agencies send staff to handle operational detail and asked whether it is difficult to assemble the seven people identified for executive meetings four or five times a year. Another participant who identified themselves as a law‑enforcement official said they would often defer to staff for technical details and that a designee might be more productive in some meetings.

The group also reviewed remote attendance rules for public meetings. County counsel reminded members that because CCP meetings are Brown Act meetings, the body must make reasonable efforts to have a quorum in person; if a quorum is not in person, there are higher hurdles for allowing voting members to appear virtually and the public must have equivalent remote access. Jeff said he will circulate guidance about when remote attendance is permitted and noted there are high bars and notice requirements for remote participation.

Next steps the group agreed on: staff will circulate a revised draft of the bylaws that (1) includes a roster of designees to be updated once a year, (2) distinguishes voting and nonvoting designees, and (3) contains guidance on remote attendance consistent with Brown Act requirements. Members indicated they expect to review and possibly adopt the bylaws at a subsequent meeting once county counsel has reviewed the draft roster and language.

Minor administrative items: the group confirmed it has a quorum and will circulate the draft bylaws and a schedule for an annual designee update.