Chatham County commissioners eliminate formal liaison roles to advisory boards

The Chatham County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on March 18 to eliminate formal commissioner liaison positions to county advisory boards and committees, a change the board’s majority described as an effort to standardize how advisory bodies report to the board and to rely on county staff as the routine conduit of information.

Board members said the change is intended to reduce confusion about whether a commissioner speaking at an advisory‑board meeting is representing the whole board, and to make sure technical, consistent updates come from staff with subject expertise.

Commissioners debated the value of a commissioner attending advisory‑board meetings and weighing the tradeoffs between direct commissioner familiarity with topics and the need for neutral, consistent staff reporting. County staff told the board they will preserve “staff leads” who will continue to attend and support advisory bodies. Staff also committed to return with a proposed set of changes to the county’s advisory‑committee policy to standardize appointment procedures, membership rules, reporting expectations and conflict‑of‑interest guidance.

The board’s action: a single motion to “eliminate the role of Board of County Commissioner liaisons to any board or committee” carried unanimously. The clerk recorded a unanimous vote. The county manager and staff team said they will draft proposed policy updates and an implementation plan for the board to review in April, including clarifying which advisory panels are governed by statute versus those created at the board’s discretion.

Why it mattered: Commissioners said the county’s rapid growth and the greater complexity of issues — transportation, housing and watershed planning among them — increase the need for consistent, expert briefings. Staff pointed to inconsistencies across existing committee charters and meeting practices and told commissioners they will propose clearer, uniform guidance for appointments, term tracking and reporting.

Next steps: Staff will bring a redlined advisory‑policy proposal and recommended reporting templates to the commissioners for review; a target date of the April 21 meeting was cited by staff. The board also asked staff to notify the affected advisory boards and committee chairs about the procedural change and to clarify how chairs should request formal direction from the commission.

Evidence and process notes: The board’s vote was taken in public session after an extended discussion during the March 18 work session. County staff repeatedly emphasized that the change does not remove statutory appointments (for example, the county’s voting member seats required by state law) nor does it prevent commissioners from attending meetings as private citizens or from meeting chair‑to‑chair when the board directs such contact. The county manager indicated an implementation plan will include clearer definitions of which bodies are statutory, which are discretionary, and how staff leads will be assigned and held accountable.