St. Mary's County Youth Advisory Commission weighs recruitment, clarifies advisory role and next steps; minutes approved

The St. Mary's County Youth Advisory Commission met March 1, 2021, to discuss recruitment, clarify whom the commission is intended to advise, and plan next steps to increase youth participation. Members approved minutes from Aug. 3 and later moved to adjourn.

The meeting focused on two recurring concerns: uncertainty about the commission’s formal advisory target (which officials or departments receive and act on its recommendations) and structural barriers that limit youth participation. Latay Reeves, Youth Advisory Commission staff support liaison, said the group’s immediate next step should be direct contact with county commissioners so members can learn what the commissioners would welcome and align the commission’s work accordingly. "I think the first step is getting in contact with the county commissioners, and inviting them to your next meeting so that you guys can have an idea and have a streamlined understanding as to what they expect," Reeves said.

Former adult advisors and advisers on the call urged follow-up after presentations and clearer lines of communication. Kelsey Bush, a former advisor, recounted the commission’s origin and said the group must define who it advises and how recommendations will be used. Bush added that meeting logistics can exclude young people: "You are locked into a location for most of your meetings... You've already set up a structural environment that prevents a lot of individuals from being involved," Bush said, urging outreach beyond the government center and the county website.

Marsha Williams, another former adult advisor, said departments within St. Mary's County government have sent speakers to past meetings and expressed interest in youth input, but that follow-up was often missing. "The youth voices are critical. They are the future of this county, and we cannot ignore them, and we should not ignore them," Williams said, calling for formal invitations and clearer direction about where recommendations should be sent.

Commissioners and advisers proposed concrete recruitment and outreach ideas discussed during the meeting: distribute a YAC flyer to high schools and local colleges (staff indicated a flyer and correspondence were sent Feb. 26), hold informational sessions targeting places where youth gather, partner with other county advisory committees or environmental groups to broaden reach, and diversify communication channels beyond email (social media, on-campus tabling, group texts). Members also discussed adjusting meeting formats and locations to reduce access barriers.

On procedural items the commission recorded two formal actions during the meeting. A member moved and another seconded to approve the minutes from Aug. 3; the motion carried with no recorded opposition. Later, a motion to adjourn was moved and seconded (the chair’s second was noted in absentia) and the meeting was adjourned.

Next steps recorded in the discussion: staff will work with the Human Services Division Manager to contact the county commissioners and will email the commission with status updates; members plan an informational session and further outreach once commissioners’ expectations are clearer. Members also reviewed the proposed meeting calendar for the year and were reminded that April, Sept. and Oct. meetings fall on the third Monday, and there will be no meeting in July.

The commission did not take any formal votes on bylaws, membership criteria, or officer elections at this meeting; members discussed interest in filling officer roles and agreed to consider those positions between meetings.

The commission plans to follow up at the next scheduled meeting after staff reports on outreach to the county commissioners.