Board to revisit policy on district-specific appointments after supervisors debate concurrence vs. notification

Supervisor Church brought a referral Sept. 1 asking the board to establish a policy requiring a supervisor to obtain prior consent from the supervisor representing a candidate’s home district before appointing that person to a district-specific board or commission seat. The intent, Church said, is to prevent appointments that cross district boundaries without consultation.

Board members discussed trade-offs: some said requiring consent could leave vacancies unfilled in districts with low applicant pools; others argued that district representation matters and that a required notice and opportunity to concur is a reasonable expectation. Several supervisors suggested a middle path — automatic notice to the supervisor of the appointee’s district and an option for that supervisor to object — and recommended a broader housekeeping review of how the county advertises vacancies and enforces annual reporting from boards and commissions.

The board directed staff to return with a broader discussion of appointments and boards/commissions policies (including the pending referral) when all five supervisors can participate and with information about the county’s existing annual-report requirement for commissions.