Commissioner's agenda-setting motion fails; board discusses steering committee family-member appointments and requests nepotism policy

A proposal by Commissioner Claggett to add a formal agenda-setting process to the board's rules of procedure failed for lack of a second at the Oct. 6 meeting. Claggett had asked that draft agendas be circulated to all commissioners for review and possible revision before formal adoption.

Claggett read a multi-step proposal that would delegate primary responsibility for developing a draft agenda to a clerk or manager, require formal solicitation of items from staff and board members, circulate the draft to all board members for review and then require a formal vote at the meeting to approve the agenda. After discussion, no commissioner seconded the motion and it died. The chair reiterated that current rules (Rule 9, item a) permit any board member to request items be placed on the agenda and that at the start of each meeting members may move to amend the proposed agenda.

Later in the meeting, commissioners revisited a concern about the composition of a steering committee for a county initiative; one commissioner noted a commissioner's spouse was listed as a committee member and asked whether that practice raised transparency or nepotism concerns. The county planner and county attorney reviewed the county policies and state statutes and reported they found no existing county policy explicitly barring family members from citizen advisory committees. The county attorney said he would draft a recommended policy, starting with a definition of "immediate family," and bring it back for the board's consideration.

Board members said they wanted a narrowly drawn definition of immediate family to avoid overly broad restrictions while addressing the perception of conflicts. No formal policy was adopted on Oct. 6; the matter will return after the county attorney drafts proposed language.