Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to add late board appointments after members raise vetting and process concerns
Summary
Councilman Burns sought to add several volunteer board appointments onto the Jan. 14 agenda; councilors said the names missed the deadline and that at‑large positions require broader vetting, and Burns withdrew the add‑on.
Councilman Kevin A. Burns brought forward a request to add several volunteer board appointments to the Jan. 14 agenda, saying the clerk’s office had vetted applicants but resolution paperwork did not reach the city attorney’s office in time.
Multiple council members questioned why the nominees had not been included on the published agenda and whether the add‑on would set a precedent. One council member said at‑large appointments — e.g., Downtown Action Committee or Personnel Board seats — should be comfortable to the whole council, not decided in a single meeting without broader notice.
The city attorney confirmed a supermajority — four affirmative votes — is required under Section 2‑17 of the city code for an add‑on appointment. After debate and requests for more time to vet and ensure district‑specific appointments, Councilman Burns withdrew his request and the clerk recorded the motion as withdrawn.
Council members who opposed the add‑on said they had no objection to the nominees themselves but wanted the process followed so more candidates could be considered and so the full council could review at‑large appointees.
No vote was held on the appointments after the withdrawal.
