Commission debates moving liaison reports to public comment, community advocates urge retention

Commissioners and community advocates sharply discussed whether established liaison slots should appear on the commission agenda or be moved into the public comment period.

Steven, who identified himself as chair of the Northern Arizona Community of Practice, said eliminating liaison positions would create an access barrier for groups who rely on direct liaison representation. "Eliminating these liaison positions would in fact create yet another barrier for these individuals," he told the commission.

The chair of the commission said the intent was administrative: to move liaison reports into public participation so the commission could focus on core business and manage meeting time; the chair said this was not intended to remove liaison voices entirely. Commissioners agreed to trial moving liaisons into the public participation slot for six months and to revisit the arrangement in January if needed.

Several commissioners, including those who advocated for retaining liaisons, suggested compromises: placing liaison reports at the start of meetings with a 3–5 minute allotment, or allowing liaisons to request full agenda time if a topic requires discussion. Commissioners also discussed process constraints — including public comment rules that limit back‑and‑forth dialogue unless a relevant follow‑up question is raised during an agenda item — and asked staff to draft a procedural approach for the six‑month trial.

The commission directed staff to implement the change for six months and to bring options for how liaison participation could be structured during that trial period.