Bigger fish to fry – Our view: Proposed ordinance a solution without a problem

Advisory boards and commissions to the city council are, by their nature, intended to offer the city council a recommendation on an issue. They were not created to make hard and lasting decisions. They are made up of citizens who ideally put far more into their respective appointments than they receive in compensation. They work in relative anonymity and ask only their recommendations be thoughtfully considered.
Appointees serving on the city’s advisory boards truly are giving back to their community.
So, it seems a bit surprising that what appears to be a majority of the city council’s members seem hellbent on trying to exercise control over a group of people it should be grateful are willing to serve.
They seem to have a solution. Now all they need is a problem.
At the behest of Councilor Milan Alexander, the city has drafted a proposed ordinance limiting the tenure of service of people willing to serve on advisory boards and commissions. A public hearing on the proposed ordinance is slated for the Monday, March 2 city council meeting.
The proposed ordinance, if enacted, limits people to two three-year terms and prohibits a person from serving on more than one board or commission at a time. Members of the advisory boards and commissions will theoretically have to reapply after one term for the privilege of serving a second term.
The proposed ordinance includes a provision the council may remove a person from an advisory board or commission. All it will take under Alexander’s provision is a three-fifths majority rather than the previously-accepted four-fifths super majority.
Alexander has publicly stated his displeasure with the park advisory board for its rejection of Councilor Cory Neid’s attendance and lack of support for board recommendations. In defense of Neid, he works Wednesdays and can’t readily attend the meetings that night. How about meeting on another night?
The three-fifths provision would make it too easy for, say, a group of three council members to remove advisory board members it deems uncooperative rather than working toward an amicable solution. That’s especially concerning, as we have seen in the recent months, when councilors vote as a group.
Alexander has taken on the mission of late to inform the masses on the satisfaction of serving on the city’s advisory boards and commissions. The city has a local radio station, a community newspaper, an electronic message board along East 11th Street and social media to advertise openings on advisory boards and commissions.
People are busy. With the level of disfunction the city council periodically displays, residents aren’t exactly rushing to city hall to apply.
Sadly, that’s a problem. Most of the proposed ordinance the council is considering is not needed.
Is all this really necessary? We think not. The council has other issues than the personality clashes to deal with.
Control utility rates, continue providing a high level of service at a fair rate of taxation, deal with the proposed creation of a comprehensive plan, prepare for the growth of the city’s residential and commercial-industrial components, and perhaps start to accept input from residents during council meetings.
These are reasonable ideas to start with. In any season, the city council has bigger fish to fry.

-jm