Democratic Party position: Yes
Matt’s position: Yes, with a caveat
Current System
For the covered boards, commissions, agencies and authorities:
The County Executive selects an appointee.
County Council confirms the appointment.
The Executive may later remove the appointee.
Council generally does not have the same confirmation role when the person is removed.
What a Yes Vote Does
Issue 12 requires Council to confirm an Executive-initiated removal of covered board or commission members.
The new process would generally be:
Executive appoints.
Council confirms.
Executive initiates removal.
Council confirms or rejects the removal.
What It Does Not Do
Issue 12 does not generally allow Council to initiate removal proceedings independently.
Council could reject or approve a removal initiated by the Executive, but it could not decide on its own to begin removing a covered board member under this amendment.
Specific boards may have separate removal procedures established by state law, the Charter or county ordinances.
Issue 12 also does not apply to the county Law Director. The Law Director is an appointed county officer, not a board or commission member covered by this proposal. This will be important in the future. Remember this.
My Reasoning
I support requiring Council confirmation because board members should exercise independent, advisory, regulatory or quasi-judicial responsibilities.
If Council participates in appointing a person, it is reasonable for Council to participate when that person is removed.
My caveat is that the authority remains one-directional. The Executive can initiate removal, but Council cannot.
I support Issue 12 because Council already participates in confirming appointments and should also have a role when the Executive attempts to remove those appointees.
However, Council should also have a defined process for initiating removal proceedings. That process could require cause, notice, a hearing or a supermajority vote so it cannot be abused.