Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates policy language on "committee of the whole" and notice for votes
Summary
Board members and staff debated whether a committee meeting can be made a "committee of the whole" and whether official votes may occur at such meetings; Gareth Stiles explained notice requirements and practice, and several members urged clearer policy language to prevent short‑notice voting.
The board held an extended procedural discussion about policy language that allows the board president to designate a committee as a "committee of the whole" and about the circumstances under which an official vote may take place in such a setting.
Chair and committee members raised concerns that making a committee a committee of the whole with short public notice could enable votes without adequate prior public study. One board member asked, "Can a vote occur in a committee of the whole if all 9 board... is expected to come or asked to come, can an official vote take place?" Gareth Stiles responded that it can, depending on how it is advertised, and added that a committee of the whole is typically a "full board work session on topics," whereas an ad hoc committee is a smaller, temporary group. He also noted minimum public-notice requirements for special meetings.
Several members said the language should be clarified so committees cannot be used to circumvent the director's study forum or to push through votes with insufficient notice. Stiles and staff recommended clarifying policy language to protect public notice requirements and to preserve director study sessions as the main venue for initial public discussion of items that will later come to the full board for action.
Board members agreed to revisit the policy wording; staff were asked to clean up the language to clarify when voting is appropriate and how committees of the whole are advertised and used.
