Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bangor advisory committee reviews proposed ordinance changes on membership and attendance
Summary
The Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights Advisory Committee discussed recommended amendments to Ordinance Chapter 23 that would clarify student member eligibility, add designated liaisons, and set attendance and removal procedures. No formal vote was taken because the meeting lacked a quorum.
The Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights Advisory Committee for Bangor discussed proposed changes to Ordinance Chapter 23 intended to clarify membership categories and attendance expectations, committee members said. Committee chair Katie Bridal opened the discussion and city staff summarized legal review and next steps.
The committee considered language to broaden the student-member slot so it could cover any student "currently enrolled in secondary or post-secondary education," rather than naming a single school, and discussed whether the student should be required to reside in Bangor or the Bangor area. "This language is firm that the student would have to reside in Bangor," city staff said, adding that the draft currently gives "preference" to Bangor residents but does not strictly limit membership to them.
Committee members said they favored flexibility. Member Mark Roth said many college students who attend area schools do not live in the city and that limiting the slot to Bangor residents could reduce the pool of eligible students. The group discussed changing the language to "Bangor area" to broaden eligibility.
The draft also proposes a designated city-council liaison chosen by the council chair and allows designees for roles such as the city manager and school superintendent so that the committee has consistent participation from those offices.
Attendance and removal procedures drew extended discussion. The draft sets attendance expectations that members "shall not be absent for more than four regularly scheduled meetings within a 12‑month period unless excused," and says that over a three‑year term members should attend at least 75% of scheduled meetings and not miss more than three in a row. The committee debated whether four unexcused absences is an appropriate threshold. Member Amy (committee member) and others urged clarity about what constitutes an "excused" absence and recommended a written-notice requirement. City staff explained the due-process approach: members who reach a specified threshold would receive notice, have an opportunity for a hearing, and the personnel committee would make removal decisions; council would effect removal by council order if required.
City staff said legal review had been completed on the removal language to ensure members have due-process rights and that further committee recommendation would be required before sending the ordinance changes to the Government Operations Committee and then to the full council for two readings. Assistant City Manager Courtney O'Donnell outlined the review timeline and meeting dates for referral: Government Operations meets the first Monday of the month and council meets the second and fourth Mondays.
Because the committee did not have a quorum at the start of the meeting, members did not take any formal votes and were advised they would need a subsequent meeting with a quorum to make final recommendations and forward ordinance changes to the council.
No formal action was taken; the chair and vice chair will schedule a follow-up meeting to finalize recommendations and prepare a presentation for GovOps if needed.
