Commissioners approve reconsideration of a wildlife advisory board appointment amid process concerns

The Washoe County Board of County Commissioners voted July 8 to reconsider the June 17 appointment of Karen L. Talo to the public seat on the county advisory board to manage wildlife, agreeing to place the item on a future meeting agenda for rehearing.

Chair Alexis Hill opened the discussion at the request of Commissioner Clark, who said she had learned that some interested candidates were unable to submit applications before the appointment and asked the board to reopen the selection. "I think the process was flawed, and I think that we need to reopen this and consider the other folks that are interested," Commissioner Clark said.

Assistant district attorney Michael Large advised the board on its authority and timing. "This board is empowered to to reconsider," Large said, and noted the appointment became effective the day it was approved but that the wildlife advisory board itself had not yet taken action.

During the discussion, some commissioners expressed different views about representation on the wildlife advisory board. Vice Chair Jean Herman and Commissioner Andreola supported reconsideration to ensure transparency in the application process. Commissioner Garcia said the application period closed on May 9 and he had no concerns about the process, and Commissioner Clark said she wanted to ensure the public had access to the appointment process.

Members of the public who spoke urged the board to weigh field experience and conservation work in any selection. Jim Ray, who said he formerly held the seat, urged commissioners to consider candidates with Northern Nevada experience and on-the-ground conservation work. "Hunters, anglers, hikers, we're all conservationists," Ray told the board, urging a broad definition of conservation experience. Mel Belding, who described long involvement in guzzler construction and habitat work, urged the board to avoid controversy and to choose candidates focused on conservation work.

After discussion, a motion to approve the request to reconsider the June 17 appointment carried. The clerk announced the motion passed and said the item would return on a future agenda for rehearing. The board did not remove the appointee from the wildlife advisory board immediately; rather, the item will be re-noticed per the board's rules and staff process if reconsideration proceeds.

End note: The board's action reopens the appointment process procedurally; no new appointment or final removal occurred on July 8.