Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jones County commissioners interview three applicants for advisory and zoning posts; decisions deferred to 6 p.m.
Summary
At a Feb. 17 work session, Jones County commissioners interviewed three applicants for a citizen advisory committee and the planning and zoning board. No appointments were made; the board recessed and said it would make decisions after 6:00 p.m.
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jones County commissioners held a Feb. 17 work session to interview three applicants for vacancies on a citizen advisory committee and the planning and zoning commission; the board did not make appointments during the meeting and recessed until 6:00 p.m. to decide.
The session opened at 5:01 p.m. and the board approved the meeting agenda by voice vote. The chair announced three interviews on the agenda and staff said a standard set of questions would be used for each candidate.
Jason, an applicant for the citizen advisory committee, told commissioners he has worked in the film and television industry for about a decade and said that traveling for production work gave him firsthand exposure to pedestrian infrastructure and roadway conditions across the state. He said he has lived on the county's south side since childhood and cited prior public comments and several months of self-study of planning materials as preparation. "I would absolutely argue my case passionately," he said when asked how he would respond if state or federal funding priorities conflicted with locally set projects, but he added, "in the end, what they say goes." (Jason is listed on the meeting roster as an applicant; the board later referred to him as "Mr. Kitchens" during questioning.)
A second applicant, described in the session as a land surveyor, summarized more than a decade of professional surveying and related work with firms and utilities, and said that surveying requires careful attention to plats, setbacks and zoning codes. On impartiality, he recounted a dispute in which a client insisted a fence sat on her line; after surveying, he told the client she was wrong and stressed that a surveyor's legal obligation is to the public welfare. He said he would read the county code and consult existing board members and legal staff when assessing conflicts or recusal.
The third interviewee, introduced as "Mr. Comer," said he grew up in the county and worked for many years in the dairy and clearing/grading business, and has experience with subdivision development across several counties. He told commissioners that a subdivision he worked on along Highway 49 was halted by state officials when a floodplain was discovered crossing the subdivision road; the state-ordered pause lasted about three months before the project resumed.
Commissioners praised applicants' experience and public participation; one commissioner thanked applicants for taking the initiative to make public comments before applying. The chair said the board would recess and return after 6:00 p.m. to make appointment decisions. No roll-call vote on appointments was recorded during the work session.
Procedural actions during the meeting included a voice vote approving the agenda and a later motion to adjourn; individual vote tallies were not recorded on the transcript.
The board scheduled a decision on appointments after the 6:00 p.m. hour; the public record of final appointments and any vote tallies will be made when the board reconvenes.

