Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments Nominations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs rule allowing deferral when nominees cannot attend interview
Summary
The committee discussed a proposed change to the nominations process (Rule 50.2) to permit a nominee who cannot attend an initial rules‑committee interview — because of vacation, illness, or other exigent reasons — to appear at the subsequent meeting rather than be deemed withdrawn.
Council Member Coop described a case involving an East Bank Development Authority nominee who could not attend the rules committee interview because of a family funeral and argued that automatic withdrawal for absence can be a "disservice to the city and to those individuals." He proposed language allowing the rules committee, by motion, to defer a nominee to the committee's subsequent meeting for consideration.
Supporters said the staggered two‑meeting nomination process already creates room to handle limited deferrals; opponents warned that broad permissive language could be gamed and complicate scheduling when multiple nominees are competing for the same seat. One member urged a narrowly drawn exception for "exigent or extreme circumstances" to avoid routine use of the mechanism.
Legal and procedural concerns: Special Counsel and staff noted a fundamental difference between appointments and elections in committee practice. When the council holds an election for positions with multiple nominees (a common case for council‑selected seats), rules historically required a nominee to appear during the scheduled committee interview because the election follows immediately in the relevant meeting cycle; if a slot is filled at the election, later deferral is not possible. Counsel recommended any new language make that distinction explicit.
Clarifying points captured in committee discussion included that (1) for mayoral appointees the mayor's office often can reschedule or identify an alternate nominee so more flexibility exists, and (2) Legistar and clerk staff already maintain a two‑meeting referral process for many confirmations that can accommodate limited delay.
Next steps: the committee did not adopt rule language at this meeting. Members suggested redrafting to make any deferral permissive, narrowly limited to documented emergencies (sickness, funeral, documented conflict), and subject to committee motion rather than automatic entitlement.
