Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Snellville staff proposes renaming and governance changes for Youth Commission; council to review adult advisory structure and volunteer screening
Summary
Staff proposed amending the enabling resolution for the Snellville Youth Commission to rename it, increase student membership, require council approval of student members, create a codified six‑member adult advisory "Youth Council Commission," and add volunteer background‑check requirements and clearer budget/reset procedures.
City staff presented proposed changes to the city—s Youth Commission enabling resolution at the Aug. 11 work session, asking the mayor and council to consider renaming the body, expanding membership caps and codifying an adult advisory board.
The staff proposal would change the name from the Snellville Youth Commission to the Snellville Youth Council (staff said the change would align the group—s name with other city councils/commissions). Staff proposed increasing the cap on student membership from 30 to 45 to allow program growth; staff reported there are 32 students currently participating.
Staff also asked that mayor and council retain final approval of student appointments rather than leaving final selection entirely to staff or volunteers. To formalize the adult advisory role, staff proposed repealing the existing, informal advisory language and establishing a new adult board called the Snellville Youth Council Commission, composed of six members: one council liaison (appointed by the mayor), one student representative (student mayor or designee), a city staff representative (currently Esther, the youth council administrator/director), and three additional adult members nominated through the city—s board application and confirmation process.
Staff emphasized the need for background checks for adult advisers and volunteers who work with youth. In staff—s words, as the program grows “we really do need to have that background check in place and on file with the city.” The proposal would clarify open‑records responsibilities for agendas and minutes and set the adult advisory board—s powers and duties in writing, including student recruitment assistance and program support.
On budget and expenditure authority, staff described current activity budgets (the youth commission activity budget was described as about $15,000, with a Unity Day line item of $5,000) and noted the youth commission—s overall budget has increased in recent years (staff said the program was at about $40,000 in the most recent budget cycle). Staff asked whether the resolution should require the youth council commission to return to mayor and council before making any single‑vendor aggregate expenditure above a specific threshold. Council members responded that the typical control is the budget process itself: the commission should work within the budget the council approves and submit its annual budget for approval through the city manager.
Council and staff discussed governance details: whether the staff administrator should be a voting member of the adult advisory board. Several council members suggested the city staff administrator should serve in a nonvoting, administrative secretary role and that adult advisers should provide policy oversight and approvals. Staff said the final language will be reviewed with the city attorney and returned to council for action.
Staff also raised the need to formalize volunteer management practices for onboarding, background checks and responsibilities when volunteers who are not formal board members support activities or events. Staff said they will work with parks and recreation and the city attorney to draft language for council review.
