Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Task Force Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Inclusivity Task Force sets January drafting deadlines, weighs staff position amid tight budget guidance
Summary
The task force agreed that each working group will produce an informal 'brain dump' by early January for consolidation into a draft report; members discussed recommending a dedicated staff position but were cautioned that current budget guidance limits new positions and any staffing would likely be a budget option.
Members of the Inclusivity Task Force spent the second half of the meeting reviewing working‑group progress and setting deliverables ahead of a final report to county council.
Member 5 proposed that each working group produce an informal 'brain dump' — a free‑form document listing work completed, findings and preliminary recommendations — with a suggested target of Jan. 7 so leads could consolidate inputs and produce a draft outline before the January 20/21 meeting. Members agreed that consolidated drafts should be ready for task‑force review in January so the group can finalize a report outline and plan a council presentation in early March.
Several members urged clear handrails for the brain‑dump format and discussed collaboration methods that avoid creating a quorum in informal communications; staff and leads said email collaboration with up to four working‑group members is acceptable under the group's quorum rules.
Member 3 and others raised the idea of recommending a dedicated county staff position (an FTE) to maintain momentum after the task force sunsets. Council liaison Randall cautioned the task force that current budget guidance from the county manager does not include recommendations for new positions; council can still approve budget options, but any recommended staff time would likely appear as a budget option and require reallocation or new funding.
Members suggested phrasing recommendations around the unmet needs the group has identified and proposing multiple options (for example, a 10% staff allocation, adding responsibilities to existing staff, or a full FTE) rather than requesting a single staffing solution. Members agreed to prioritize needs‑based recommendations and return with consolidated materials at the January meeting.
No formal vote was held on governance or staffing; task‑force leaders will work with council staff to determine presentation timing and to include any budget options if members choose to recommend staff resources.
