The most notable topic at the meeting was the ongoing concern about board member attendance and its impact on the board’s functionality. The board reviewed attendance records and focused on a member who had accumulated six absences in the previous year and two in the current year. This absenteeism raised concerns about the board’s ability to maintain a quorum and continue its operations effectively. It was pointed out that frequent absences necessitate the involvement of alternate members to ensure meetings can proceed, leading to questions about the voting rights of these alternates when they continually replace absent primary members.

A member articulated the sentiment of the board, stating, “I feel like six absences is extremely excessive,” highlighting the expectation of commitment from all board members. The board discussed the importance of addressing these attendance issues. It was proposed that this member be given the opportunity to explain their circumstances at the next meeting. If the explanation was unsatisfactory, the board considered taking steps to remove them under the bylaws. In cases where a seat becomes vacant, an alternate would fill the position until the city council appoints a permanent replacement.

The board also emphasized the need for a compassionate approach in dealing with absenteeism. A proposal was made to draft a “life gets in the way letter” to the absent member, acknowledging their contributions while pointing out the attendance issues. The letter would also offer the member a chance to resign voluntarily if they felt overwhelmed by their commitments. This diplomatic approach was favored as it balanced accountability with an understanding of personal circumstances.

In addition to addressing specific attendance concerns, the board engaged in a broader discussion on the bylaws governing attendance. Stephanie Strader, a principal planner with community development, presented attendance records and clarified the symbols used to denote various attendance statuses. The board’s bylaws currently stipulate that any member with three consecutive unexcused absences shall be expelled. However, the board debated the potential for adopting a non-consecutive approach to unexcused absences. It was proposed that the bylaws be amended to specify that three unexcused absences, whether consecutive or not, would be deemed excessive. This proposal highlighted the need for a more robust framework to manage attendance effectively.

The discourse on attendance transitioned into discussions about what qualifies as an excused absence. Members expressed concerns over the current process, which allows staff members to determine excused absences based on notification from the absent member. Some members argued for stricter standards and proposed that the chairperson should have the authority to decide the legitimacy of an absence. Suggestions were made for the board to adopt guidelines similar to those of other boards, specifying acceptable reasons for excused absences, such as health issues, family emergencies, or work conflicts.

The discussion also touched upon the board’s composition and qualifications for membership. New board member Carmen inquired about additional meetings or training sessions to enhance her understanding of the board’s functions. She expressed interest in attending work sessions and other city meetings to gain insights. Carmen also raised concerns about board membership qualifications, particularly residency requirements. The board discussed the city clerk’s role in pre-qualifying members at the time of appointment and the possibility of implementing an annual affidavit system for members to affirm their residency.