Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Services Council topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dobbs Ferry trustees discuss removing Youth Services Council from village code in favor of ad hoc/resolution model
Summary
Trustees reviewed a draft proposal to remove the Youth Services Council from the village code—currently a nine-member, codified advisory body—and instead establish its functions by resolution or as an ad hoc committee, citing flexibility and reduced staff burden; a public hearing will be required to delete a body created by local law.
The Dobbs Ferry Board of Trustees on June 23 reviewed proposed changes to the village code that would remove the Youth Services Council from local law and re-create its role by resolution or as an ad hoc advisory group. Chair opened the discussion noting the original code language likely reflected past grant requirements that have since expired and that a less rigid structure could offer greater flexibility.
Board members said codified advisory boards are commonly used to preserve a body beyond a single board’s term or to give it a formal role in decision-making. Several trustees said the youth council’s strict membership rules (the existing draft specifies nine adult members and a defined list of duties) have made recruitment difficult and can burden staff when volunteers contact department employees directly.
"I would recommend that we just pull it from the code completely and then have the definition for the services council that we agree on that we can do a resolution for," one trustee said, summarizing the majority view that the council could continue as an advisory, noncodified body. Counsel and trustees noted a distinction between advisory boards that can be created by resolution and those that must remain in code because state law attaches specific duties (for example, certain review roles tied to the state environmental quality review act).
Trustees agreed staff should prepare a redlined local-law draft and an implementation plan that explains how the council would operate under a resolution (membership, mission statement, appointment process, and reporting lines). They also discussed outreach to current members so volunteers understand the change and do not feel excluded.
The board acknowledged that deleting a body created by local law requires a public hearing. Members discussed packaging several code cleanups into one local law and preparing public-relations materials in advance. Staff was directed to return with a revised draft and recommended language for a resolution; no final vote was taken at the meeting.
Next steps: staff will circulate a redlined draft for trustee review and return the item for a workshop and possible public hearing scheduling.
