Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treasurer Appointment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays treasurer appointment after executive session amid competing public testimony
Summary
The board continued consideration of the treasurer appointment to July 28 after a short executive‑session break. Multiple Treasurer's Office employees urged the board to appoint Chief Deputy Jake Martin, while some public speakers raised concerns; the board followed legal counsel's advice to continue the item.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors on July 14 moved item 22 — the appointment of a county treasurer — into a short executive‑session and then voted to continue the matter to the board's next regular meeting on July 28.
Public comment before and during the meeting included multiple employees from the Pima County Treasurer's Office who urged the board to appoint Chief Deputy Jake Martin. Pauline Bell, who identified herself as a Treasurer's Office employee, said Martin “is by far one of the most professional, mature, competent leaders I have ever had the honor of working under,” and urged the board not to decide based on age. Catherine Mecronis described Martin’s role maintaining day‑to‑day operations during a turbulent period and said, “his leadership and conduct have contributed to the difficult and necessary process of beginning to rebuild that trust.” Julie McLaren said staff morale had been “fractured” and argued Martin had preserved safety and respect for staff.
Several public speakers raised other concerns unrelated to appointment mechanics, including an extended telephonic statement from a District 5 candidate alleging a law‑enforcement incident is under appeal; the board did not act on those claims.
Board action and legal advice: On the advice of legal counsel, Supervisor Scott moved to continue item 22 until the next regular meeting (July 28) unless a special meeting is called earlier; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The short executive session preceded the continuation motion; the clerk recorded that item 22 was continued and the motion passed 5–0.
Why it matters: The appointment was the subject of intensive public comment and employee testimony asserting operational continuity and leadership under stress. The board’s decision to delay reflects the legal and procedural considerations cited by counsel; the continuation gives the board time to resolve any outstanding legal or procedural questions and for staff to prepare additional briefing or documentation.
Next steps: Item 22 will be placed on the July 28 board agenda unless a special meeting is called earlier. Staff and board members indicated they will provide additional materials consistent with counsel’s guidance in advance of the continued consideration.
