Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Juan County commissioners review draft Policies, Procedures and Rules; vote deferred for missing member
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a consolidated draft of the county's Policies, Procedures and Rules to bring the board into compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act; members raised formatting, clarity, quorum and conflict-of-interest concerns and agreed to revisit the document with absent Commissioner Harvey's input.
San Juan County commissioners spent a substantial portion of their Feb. 3 work session reviewing a consolidated draft of the county's Policies, Procedures and Rules intended to align internal governance with state open-meetings requirements. The draft, prepared and circulated by staff and reviewed with outside counsel, was presented to the board for feedback but not finalized.
The draft was introduced by staff and a NEWAC-affiliated consultant; the presenter said commissioners had been asked to email proposed edits but none were returned. One commissioner said the copy included structural errors, duplicate lettering, blank subsections and grammatical mistakes, and asked for more time to review the correct final version. Staff and legal counsel said multiple draft versions existed because the document had been split and recombined during revision and that several visible problems were Word-to-PDF formatting artifacts that do not change substantive text.
Legal advisors and staff emphasized alignment to statute where wording matters. Counsel recommended changing phrases such as "duly called meeting" to "duly convened meeting" to mirror the Open Public Meetings Act and suggested restoring language clarifying how the commission formally convenes. Counsel also recommended clarifying that certain administrative tasks (agenda preparation, packet assembly) belong in an administrative policy rather than in the rules that govern the commission itself, though the board may choose to include cross-references for transparency.
Commissioners raised multiple substantive issues: electronic-meeting language and anchor-location requirements added after COVID-era changes; whether administrative duties should be merged with or separated from rules that govern the board; and a section that would bar a commissioner with a declared conflict from debating or voting. Legal counsel noted the statute requires disclosure of conflicts but does not automatically prohibit voting, and warned that a self-imposed ban could paralyze a three-member commission in some cases.
The board agreed the document constitutes a useful compliance framework but is not final. Commissioners asked to see the finalized version with tracked edits or highlights of changes before a vote. Because Commissioner Harvey was absent, and because some members said they had reviewed an earlier (incorrect) copy, the commission deferred final action and will take up the item again at a later meeting after circulating the corrected draft and allowing time for comments.
Next steps: staff will circulate the corrected packet (PDF and Word), highlight substantive changes, and place the item on the next agenda so that the full commission, including Commissioner Harvey, can consider whether to adopt the policy or to defer for additional revision.
