Committee debates boards and commissions rules, residency and a charter-mandated ethics board

The Charter Review Committee spent a sustained portion of its meeting on Article 7, which governs boards and commissions, residency and qualifications, appointment mechanisms and whether to create a board of ethics.

Members compared the committee’s existing provisions to model language from other charters. The committee favored keeping a paragraph that permits advisory-board participation from ETJ residents (for example, park board members), and agreed to add the word "committees" alongside "boards and commissions" to improve consistency.

On qualifications, committee members debated reducing the residency requirement (Aubrey proposes 90 days vs. the committee’s 12 months). There was also no consensus on a proposal that former council members receive automatic appointment to the Board of Adjustment: S3 supported automatic appointment as a way to preserve institutional knowledge, while Chair and others opposed automatic placement because the Board of Adjustment’s role often requires a willingness to deny variances and to adhere strictly to ordinances.

The group also held a detailed discussion about creating a board of ethics. Some members favored charter-mandating an independent ethics body with investigative/recommending authority; others worried about weaponization, the body’s actual authority (it cannot remove council members directly), selection/appointment mechanics and difficulty recruiting members. Committee members asked staff to collect models and examples (some cited are created by ordinance, others by charter) and to return with draft language and options.

Next steps: staff will compile sample ethics-board language and appointment structures and prepare redraft options for Article 7 and related appointment mechanics.