The Nueces County Commissioners Court on Jan. 8 approved a slate of reappointments and new member selections for advisory boards but repeatedly tabled specific appointments so the court can draft a uniform policy on conflicts of interest.

The court voted to reappoint members and fill openings on multiple boards — including the Airport Advisory Board, County Beach Management Advisory Committee, Coastal Parks Board and several Emergency Services Districts — while postponing action on some nominees the court said might face employment-related conflicts.

The motion prompting the tabling came from Commissioner Chesney, who asked the county attorney to draft a policy “that prohibits a person or a person’s spouse from serving or applying for any county board ... that is employed by that entity.” The court directed staff to return a draft for consideration at the first meeting in February. Judge and other commissioners said the measure aims to make standards uniform and reduce the perception of conflicts when nominees have ties to organizations the boards oversee.

Commissioners described the approach as proactive and countywide. Commissioner Chesney said he wanted to avoid repeated ad hoc judgments about whether a candidate’s employment or family ties create a conflict. Several commissioners said the policy could change how the court handles current incumbents if it is adopted.

Votes at a glance
- Reappointed or appointed (selected in open session): Airport Advisory Board — Terry Mills and Keely Hunsaker reappointed; two precinct openings reopened for new applications. County Beach Management Advisory Committee — five incumbents reappointed and JJ Hart appointed. Coastal Parks Board — Randall Moore appointed and incumbents reappointed. Nueces County Emergency Services Districts — multiple reappointments and appointments across ESDs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 (individual names recorded in court minutes). Nueces County Hospital District Board of Managers — Georgia Niblett and Karen Urban were approved after a brief roll-call selection process. (Each of the above passed by voice votes; for some items the court voted to reopen applications or table as noted.)

Tabled items and direction
- The court voted unanimously to table specific board appointment items that might be affected by the new conflict policy and to bring them back when the policy is drafted. The court set the first Feb. meeting as the target for the policy draft and said nominees who are currently serving would remain in place until that discussion and vote.

Why this matters
- Commissioners said the patchwork of prior practices left room for public misunderstanding when appointees were employed by entities that appear before the boards they serve. A single, written policy would clarify eligibility rules, whether spouse employment counts, and whether immediate resignation is required when appointment could present a conflict.

What’s next
- County staff including the county attorney will draft proposed policy language and return it to the court at the Feb. 5 meeting for discussion and possible adoption. The court asked that applicants and affected boards be given notice and an opportunity to comment when the draft is released.

Provenance: The discussion and votes appear in the court transcript beginning with public comments and the appointment sequence (topic intro) and continuing through the tabling motion and policy direction (topic finish).