Exclusive boards

Consider the irony: At the same time town staff are making considerable efforts to encourage more people to get involved in the town decision-making process by applying to advisory boards and commissions, the Council Committee on Boards and Commissions has proposed limiting the number of people who will actually be considered for appointment.

And, after the CCBC recently expanded the minimum number of people required to pass a motion on some of the advisory commissions, the committee now proposes reducing the number of council members who will select from that limited pool whom to recommend for appointment.

In a proposed resolution that will come before council very late at our meeting this Wednesday night — it is Item #17 of an unwieldy 19-item agenda — the CCBC wants to restrict the number of people who will be interviewed for a seat on four boards that make binding decisions and two boards that weigh in on development issues. The idea is to consider only people who have a background in the work of that board, and reject those who simply have creative ideas and care about the town.

The CCBC also has requested that the smaller pool of applicants be interviewed by a three-member panel of council members, who will make a recommendation to the rest of council on whom to appoint. Only two votes on a three-member interview committee will decide who will be the preferred appointees. That sets up an awkward situation where council members who disagree with the recommendation engender the ire of those who made it.

I serve on such an interviewing committee, and whether coincidence or not, the resulting board whose members we’ve chosen is one of the least diverse in terms of viewpoints and gender. All but one applicant came recommended by a sitting member of the board; the one applicant who didn’t instead brought an innovative, think-outside-the-box perspective, but he got only my vote. To consider that applicant, the rest of council would have had to dismiss the advice of two of their colleagues.

When community members criticize the lack of diversity on our boards, they aren’t saying, “Find a person of color, and call it good.” They want people who understand the viewpoints of the wide range of constituents in our town and bring fresh ideas.

Granted, the range of constituent demographics is getting tighter as it becomes more expensive to live in town. Then again, the range is getting tighter on those we appoint to boards, who pass judgment on the development projects that make it more expensive to live here.

Is there a connection?

— Nancy Oates