Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Budget Advisory Committees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multnomah County approves 23 CBAC appointments, adopts first reading of code changes to widen community input
Summary
The Multnomah County Board approved 23 appointments to departmental Community Budget Advisory Committees and adopted a first reading of an ordinance that revises County code to expand recruitment, set committee sizes and add conflict-of-interest reporting; the board also adopted a set of amendments to the ordinance.
The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners on first reading approved an ordinance to revise county code governing Community Budget Advisory Committees (CBACs) and voted to confirm 23 community appointments to those committees.
The actions are intended to expand and standardize how residents advise departments during the county budget process, add a minimum committee size, clarify diversity and recruitment expectations, and add conflict-of-interest reporting. The board adopted the ordinance’s amendments on a roll-call vote before approving the ordinance’s first reading; the second reading is scheduled for 2025-02-13.
Why it matters: CBACs are one of the county’s formal channels for community input on budget priorities. County officials and community members told the board the existing practice produced uneven recruitment, unclear records of terms, and inconsistent follow-through; the ordinance and the ancillary program changes aim to create year-round recruitment, minimum committee membership, clearer onboarding and reporting, and an option for departments to compensate members.
At the meeting Chair Vega Peterson called up R1, the slate of 23 appointees to departmental CBACs. OCI Director Amada Perez said the new members will serve three-year terms and that departments had followed a selection process with interviews and rubrics. Perez told the board OCI had compiled rosters, district information and biographies for the appointees and that OCI coordinates initial onboarding and orientation for CBAC members.
Public testimony included a detailed critique from Daniel D’Amelo, who identified himself as chair of the Central CBAC and a member of the JOHS advisory group. D’Amelo said his review of CBAC records revealed procedural problems: “I found that there are at least 13 more vacant seats ready for new appointments,” he told the board, and he said more than half of the listed returning members had incorrect term dates in the materials presented. He also said the volunteer body created for JOHS had not been established by ordinance, which he said the county charter requires.
OCI and staff acknowledged gaps in centralized records. Perez told the board that departments currently maintain appointment data in separate systems and that OCI is working to centralize participant information. Perez also said this recruitment cycle produced a relatively small applicant pool: “We had a total of 39 applications this particular cycle,” she said.
The ordinance before the board (R2) makes several code changes and programmatic recommendations described by staff. Those changes include: clarifying CBAC purpose; specifying that each department should have a CBAC while allowing new or combined CBACs as departments change; setting committee membership at a minimum of seven and a maximum of 10; naming dimensions of diversity the county seeks for membership (including geographic representation and income levels); adding language that allows departments to offer support or compensation to participants; aligning CBAC timelines and reporting with the budget cycle; and clarifying conflict-of-interest language.
Commissioner Grama Edwards moved an amendment that adds a preference for county residents in appointment decisions, requires conflict-of-interest disclosures to be shared with the Office of Community Involvement and the Board of County Commissioners, and requires the central CBAC’s majority-vote written report be submitted to the chair, the board and the public. Commissioner Singleton proposed additional language requiring active recruitment for diverse representation and adding “income levels” to enumerated diversity factors. The board adopted the amendment unanimously by roll call.
Several commissioners and members of the public stressed the need to improve outreach and data on who applies and participates. Commissioner Brad Moyer said he was uncomfortable with the timing of some last-minute amendments and asked for accommodations and clearer advance distribution of materials. Commissioner Singleton and others encouraged OCI to convert lessons from other advisory bodies into standard practice so improvements survive staff turnover.
Board votes and next steps: The board approved the 23 appointments on a roll-call vote (Moyer: yes; Singleton: aye; Grama Edwards: yes; Jones Dixon: yes; Chair Vega Peterson: yes). The board then approved the first reading of the Chapter 3 ordinance as amended; the second reading is set for 2025-02-13, when the board will take a final vote on the code changes.
The board and OCI staff said they will continue to refine programmatic elements—year-long recruitment, centralized participant records, and a CBAC handbook—to address the procedural problems public commenters and staff documented. OCI said it will return with implementation details and that departments may begin to offer compensation or supports for participation in keeping with the new code language.
Ending: The ordinance’s adoption at second reading and the operational details OCI develops next will determine how the county fills vacancies, documents member terms, and measures whether CBACs produce broader and more representative public input on the budget.
