Cochise County supervisors review dozens of committee seats; staff to place assignments on consent agenda

Cochise County supervisors and county staff on Thursday reviewed the county’s roster of committee, commission and intergovernmental appointments and provisionally assigned board members to multiple seats, with staff saying the appointments will be added to the Jan. 7 consent agenda.

County staff presenter Sharon Gilman told the board that the previous board “determined which members of the board and staff would be on various committees based on IGAs and resolutions,” and that many memberships already have dues paid for the fiscal year.

The discussion covered statewide organizations such as the Arizona Association of Counties and the County Supervisors Association; multi-county coalitions including an eastern Arizona/New Mexico counties coalition and a border counties coalition focused on economic development; regional planning and transportation bodies such as the Sierra Vista Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); SECOM (Southeast Arizona Communications); and local nonprofit or service groups including the emergency food and shelter local board and Southeastern Arizona Community Action Program (CCAP).

Supervisors volunteered for or accepted several seats during the work session. For example, Gilman said she would “put Supervisor Antonori on the public lands advisory committee” and the board agreed to have committee assignments placed on the consent agenda for formal action on Tuesday, Jan. 7. Gilman also said staff had proposed interim six‑month appointments because many memberships and dues were paid at the start of the fiscal year.

Board members raised questions about cost, benefit and overlap among the many county organizations. Gilman identified several line items and membership amounts during discussion: the board of supervisors association membership was described in the meeting as a significant line item (discussants cited figures in the tens of thousands of dollars for overall association and service fees), and smaller individual memberships — for example, a listed $100 yearly fee for one individual membership — were also noted.

Supervisors asked for follow‑up work sessions to better understand the role and value of groups with overlapping missions. Crosby said he wanted a broader briefing on IGAs and MOUs so new board members could see the legal and budgetary commitments attached to each relationship. Gilman agreed staff would schedule additional briefings and gather documentation for the board to review.

The county also discussed seats that are tied by intergovernmental agreement or IGA/MOU to county staff rather than elected members. Gilman said the Arizona Counties insurance pool IGA names the county administrator as the representative; in the interim she and Joe Case were listed as representatives until the board formalizes appointments.

Gilman told the board she would prepare a formal list of appointments to be included on the Jan. 7 consent agenda so the board could act collectively and publicly.

A note about procedure: work sessions were treated as informational with no public comment period, and Gilman repeatedly told the board that most of the appointments are routine and can be revisited later in the fiscal year if supervisors find a membership is not valuable.

Ending

The board did not take a formal vote during the work session. Staff will place the proposed committee and commission appointments on the Jan. 7 regular meeting consent agenda for formal action, and supervisors asked for follow‑up briefings on the larger IGAs, MOUs and higher‑cost memberships.