Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advisory Committee Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott Valley council tables recreation-facility advisory appointments after heated debate over candidates and process
Summary
After public objections and multiple motions to remove individual nominees, the Prescott Valley Town Council voted to table appointments to the Citizen Recreation Facility Advisory Committee and asked the Board and Commission Selection Committee to review the list and return recommendations at the next council meeting.
The Prescott Valley Town Council on March 13 tabled appointments to the newly formed Citizen Recreation Facility Advisory Committee after more than an hour of public comment and council debate about candidate selection, conflicts of interest and procedural transparency.
Councilman Williams, who had pulled agenda item 8C for separate consideration, said staff should ask all applicants to submit resumes and references so councilors and the public could better evaluate backgrounds before appointments. "I'm motioning the town staff reach back out to all of the applicants, thank them, but tell them that we would like to see a resume that provides more information on their experiences related to how that will help the committee," Williams said during council discussion.
The request for additional applicant information followed public comments from residents who raised concerns about specific nominees and the committee selection process. Patricia Betzold, a resident who said she is a former Chino Valley resident, urged removal of Sandy Griffiths from consideration, citing what she described as a conflict of interest tied to Griffiths’ role with the Yavapai County Contractors Association and prior conduct on the Planning and Zoning Commission. "I respectfully submit that Cindy Griffith be removed from consideration as the member of the Citizen Recreation Facility Advisory Committee," Betzold told the council.
Isabelle Serizadez, a 16-year resident, told councilors the application form did not adequately screen for code-of-conduct compliance and said several appointees overlapped with existing parks and recreation commissioners. She asked the council to enforce the town's recently adopted code of conduct's expectations of civility and impartiality for volunteers.
Council members debated multiple options: Williams proposed three motions (requesting resumes, removing nominee Eric Tetroult, and removing nominee Sandy Griffiths). The motion to remove Eric Tetroult was made and seconded but failed on the council floor. A subsequent motion to remove Sandy Griffiths also failed.
Vice Mayor Zircher moved to table the item until the next council meeting and convene the Board and Commission Selection Committee to review the list and return recommendations. The motion to table passed with a single dissent from Council member Williams. The council directed staff and the selection committee to bring a reviewed list back to council by the next meeting so the committee can begin its work.
Council staff said the application process ran for two weeks and produced 22 initial applicants; two applicants had been appointed directly by council, one withdrew, and staff treated the remaining group as 19 applicants for the selection process. Tyler Legler, staff, explained the selection criteria used by a multi-department committee: interest, experience (professional experience such as recreation, construction, project management, finance), community involvement, capacity for community engagement, and broad participation to represent town demographics.
The council emphasized that the advisory committee will have substantive responsibilities, including advising on plans and potential funding for a future aquatic center; Williams said the committee could be asked to help steward a project that might reach as much as $49 million. Council members expressed differing views on whether the selection process should favor applicants with technical experience or broader community representation. Several councilors suggested an executive session could be appropriate for discussing specific personnel concerns but only if a particular person's name were the focus and that person had been given notice.
The council's action leaves appointment decisions pending while the selection committee reviews applications and any requested supplemental materials from applicants. The council instructed staff to return a revised recommendation by the next meeting so the advisory committee can be seated and begin public engagement work.
