AGENDA ITEM #10
November 8, 2011
Action
MEMORANDUM
November 4, 2011
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Attorne~
Action:
Bill 32-11, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Committee
Evaluation and Review Board - Report
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee recommendation (3-0):
enact Bill
32-11 with the following amendments:
• require advisory boards to include direct service provided by volunteers in their list of
accomplishments;
• remove references to specific staff reduction scenarios CERB must consider
(Councilmember Navarro dissenting);
• impose the bill's requirements on the first CERB appointed after the bill is enacted (rather
than specifying that the requirements apply to the CERB appointed in 2011); and
• require CERB to report the number of volunteer hours used for each board, committee,
and commission after the
b/c/c
provides that information to CERB.
Bill 32-11, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Committee Evaluation and Review Board­
Report, sponsored by Councilmembers Navarro and Rice, President Ervin, and Councilmember
Riemer, was introduced on October 4, 2011. The Committee discussed Bill 32-11 in an
overview session on October 24. A pubic hearing was held on October 25,2011 (see testimony
on ©9).
Bill 32-11 would establish a deadline for the Committee Evaluation and Review Board (CERB) to
issue its report to the Executive and Council; require CERB to consider scenarios to reduce County
staff time supporting boards, committees, and commissions; require CERB to review and make
recommendations on certain advisory boards, committees, and commissions that request
continuation; and generally amend County law regarding the membership, structure, and functions
of boards, committees, and commissions.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prepared a fiscal and
economic impact statement that estimated the cost to prepare the CERB report would be
approximately $13,000, which includes personnel and operating costs. OMB notes, that the
estimate represents the value of in-kind staff support. Council staff notes that current law requires
CERB to
be
appointed and report to the Executive and Council. Even with the additional
requirements for the CERB report that would be imposed under Bill 32-11, OMB believes that the
effort to complete the CERB report will be comparable to the 2004 CERB report.
Issues/ Committee Recommendation
Timeframe for advisory board submissions
Bill 32-11 would require certain advisory boards to
indicate to CERB whether the advisory board should continue within 60 days (©5, lines 90-95).
Executive staff expressed concern with this 60-day timeline. At its worksession on October 24, the
Committee discussed the timeline for appointing CERB. Since CERB is unlikely to be appointed
this calendar year (Executive staff indicated that the advertisement for vacancies does not close until
November 25), the Committee recommended retaining this 60-day timeline.
Committee amendments
The Committee recommended the following amendments:
• require advisory boards to include direct service provided by volunteers in their list of
accomplishments (©5, lines 101-102);
• remove references to specific staff reduction scenarios CERB must consider (©2, lines
21-23) (Councilmember Navarro dissenting);
• impose the bill's requirements on the first CERB appointed after the bill is enacted (rather
than specifying that the requirements apply to the CERB appointed in 2011) (©2, lines 18­
20; ©6, lines 107-109); and
• require CERB to report the number of volunteer hours used for each board, committee, and
commission after the board, committee, and commission provides that information to CERB
(©2-3, lines 24-28).
The Committee recommended approval of Bill 32-11 as amended.
This packet contains:
Bill 32-11
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal Impact Statement
Testimony
Circle
1
7
8
10
F:\LA \V\BILLS\1132 Bce CERE
Report\Action Memo.Doc
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
32-11
Concerning: Boards. Committees, and
Commissions
Committee
. Evaluation and Review Board
­
Report
Draft No. 5
Revised:
11/1/2011
Introduced:
October 4, 2011
Expires:
April 4, 2013
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
-!..!.No~n.!.!:e'____::__
_ _ _-
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Navarro and Rice, Council President Ervin, and Councilmember Riemer
AN
ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
establish a deadline for the Committee Evaluation and Review Board to issue its
report to the Executive and Council;
require the Board to consider scenarios to reduce County staff time supporting
boards, committees, and commissions;
require the Board to review and make recommendations on certain advisory boards,
committees, and commissions that request continuation; and
generally amend County law regarding the membership, structure, and functions of
boards, committees, and commissions.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 2, Administration
Section 2-146
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term,
Added to existing law
by
original
bill,
Deleted from existing law
by
original
bill.
Added
by
amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the
bill by
amendment.
Existing law unaffected
by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 32-11
1
2
3
4
Sec. 1. Section 2-146 is amended as follows:
2-146. Terms of committees.
*
(c)
*
*
Committee Evaluation and Review Board.
5
6
7
ill
The
County Executive must appoint and convene at least every
10 years, subject to confirmation by the Council, a citizens
review committee comprised of [no fewer than] at least 11
members.
8
9
10
ill
[This committee] The Committee must review the committee
system and each then-existing committee and report to the
Executive and Council its recommendations for changes in
individual committees and the committee system as a whole. The
Committee must submit an interim report to the Executive and
Council within
Q
months of appointment and submit
£!
final report
within 12 months of appointment.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ill
The County Executive must designate the review committee's
chair and vice-chair.
18
19
20
Sec. 2. Contents of Committee Evaluation and Review Board Report. As
part of its report, the frrst Committee Evaluation and Review Board appointed [[in
2011]] after [date of enactment] must
21
22
23
24
uu
Dil
develop scenarios for reduction of County staff time used to support the
committees[[.
The report must include]][[, and consider reduction
scenarios of25%, 50%, and 75%]]; and
[[estimate]] provide the number of hours spent by volunteers for each
board, C9ll1ll1ittee. and commission. including by mempers and other
v()lunteer~.
25
26
Each board, cO:t11mittee, and commission, must provide the
(i)
f:\law\bills\1132 bcccerb report\bill5 (committee).doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 32-11
27
number of volunteer hours spent to the Committee Evaluation and
Review Board.
Sec. 3. Continuation of certain board, committees, and commissions:
(
a)
28
29
30
Purpose.
The County has many boards, committees, and commissions
31
32
33
34
that provide a valuable service to the County with the work they
perform.
These boards, committees, and commissions require
significant personnel and operating costs to function. In Fiscal Year
2011, the County spent an approximate $1.4 million on personnel and
operating costs to support the County's boards, committees, and
commISSIons.
While these boards, committees, and commissions
35
36
37
38
39
40
provide a valuable service, there may be opportunities for consolidation.
(b)
Continuation.
(1)
In this section, the following words have the meanings indicated:
Advisory board
means the following boards, committees, and
41
commISSIOns:
Advisory Committee on Consumer Protection
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Airpark Liaison Committee
Cable and Communications Advisory Committee
Commission for Women
Commission on Aging
Commission on Child Care
Commission on Children and Youth
Commission on Health
Commission on Juvenile Justice
Commission on People with Disabilities
Commission on Veterans Affairs
. .
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
@
f:\law\bills\1132
bee
cerb report\bill5 (committee),doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
32-11
54
55
56
57
58
Committee for Ethnic Affairs
Committee on HateNiolence
County-wide Recreation Advisory Board
Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission
Department of Permitting Services Advisory Committee
Dickerson Area Facilities Implementation Group
Domestic Violence Coordinating Council
Down County Recreation Advisory Board
East County Citizens Advisory Board
East County Recreation Advisory Board
Energy and Air Quality Advisory Committee
Fire and Emergency Services Commission
Forest Conservation Advisory Committee
Friendship Heights TMD Advisory Committee
Library Board
Mental Health Advisory Committee
Mid-County Citizens Advisory Board
Mid-County Recreation Advisory Board
Montgomery Cares Program Advisory Board
Noise Control Advisory Board
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee
Rustic Roads Advisory Committee
Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board
Silver Spring Transportation Management District Advisory
Committee
Silver Spring Urban District Advisory Committee
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
@
f:\law\bills\1132
bee
cerb report\bill 5 {committee).doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 32-11
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Sustainability Working Group
Taxicab Services Advisory Committee
Technology Investment Fund Loan/Grant Committee
Upcounty Citizens Advisory Board
Upcounty Recreation Advisory Board
Victim Services Advisory Board
Water Quality Advisory Group
Western Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board
Wheaton Urban District Advisory Committee
Committee Evaluation and Review Board
means the Board
appointed under §2-146.
(2)
Each advisory board must indicate to the Committee Evaluation
and Review Board, within 60 days after the Committee
Evaluation and Review Board is appointed, if the advisory board
should continue.
Each advisory board that so indicates must
provide the Committee Evaluation and Review Board with the
following:
(A)
(B)
a description of the work the advisory board does;
justification for why the advisory board should be
continued;
(C)
a list of accomplishments from the prior 2 years, including
any direct service provided by volunteers to residents;
(D)
(E)
a 2-year work program; and
an explanation of the amount of resources, including
County employee staff time, used and a plan to reduce the
use of those resources.
o
f:\law\bills\1132
bee
cerb report\bill5 (committee).doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 32-11
107
108
109
110
111
(3)
In addition to the duties in §2-146, as part of its report, the first
Committee Evaluation and Review Board appointed [[in 2011]]
after [date of enactment] must review each advisory board that
requests continuation under subsection (b)(2) and recommend to
the Council whether the advisory board should continue.
112
Approved:
113
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
Date
114
Approved:
115
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
116
117
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
f:\law\bills\1132 bee cerb report\bill5 (committee).doe
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 32-11,
Boards, Committees, and Commissions ­
Committee Evaluation and Review Board - Report
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 32-11 would establish a deadline for the Committee Evaluation
and Review Board (CERB) to issue its report to the Executive and
Council; require CERB to consider scenarios to reduce County staff
time supporting boards, committees, and commissions; require CERB
to review and make recommendations on certain advisory boards,
committees, and commissions that request continuation; and
generally amend County law regarding the membership, structure,
and functions of boards, committees, and commissions.
The County has many boards, committees, and commissions that
provide a valuable service to the County with the work they perform
and the advice they render. However, the boards, committees, and
commission require significant personnel and operating costs to
function.
To receive advice about how personnel costs associated with staffing
these boards, committees, and commissions can be reduced; and
provide CERB with specific criteria with which to review certain
advisory boards, committees, and commissions.
Executive staff.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Amanda Mihill, Legislative Attorney (240) 777-7815
Applies only to County boards, committees, and commissions.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
N/A
f:\law\bills\ 1132 bee eerb report\legislative request report. doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Jennifer
A.
Hughes
Director
MEMORANDUM
October 25, 2011
TO:
Valerie
Ervin'ae~t,
County Council
Jennifer
A.
~i,
Director
Council Bill 32-1 1, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Committee Evaluation and
Review Board Report
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The purpose of
this
memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
Bill 32 -11 would:
establish a deadline for the Committee Evaluation and Review Board (CERB) to issue its report to the
Executive and Council;
require the Board to consider scenarios to reduce County staff time supporting Boards, Committees,
and Commissions;
require the Board to review and make recommendations on certain advisory Boards, Committees, and
Commissions that request continuation; and
generally amend County law regarding the membership, structure, and functions ofBoards,
Committees, and Commissions.
FISCAL SUMMARY
The cost to prepare the Committee Evaluation Review Board (CERB) report requited by
Bi1l 32-1 1 would be approximately $13,210; consisting of $8,700 of personnel costs and $4,510 in
operating expenses. Please note this estimate represents the collective values of in-kind County staff
support and does not represent a significant portion ofthe workload of anyone position. Additionally,
the in-kind support staff personnel costs are appropriated in the Offices ofthe County Executive (OCEX)
budget, and volunteer reimbursement operating expenses costs in the Non-Departmental Account ­
Boards, Committees and Commissions.
Office ofthe Director
101 Monroe Street, 14th Floor- Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240·777·2800
W'vvw.montgomerycountymd.gov
mQntgomerycountymd.gov/311
240-773-3556 TTY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
October 25, 2011
Page
2
Assumptions
• The estimated in-kind County staff support hours
l
are based on the level of effort expended for the
2002-2004 Final Report of the Committee Evaluation and Review Board, plus limited committee
volunteer reimbursements for meeting mileage and dependent care. Given the increased scope ofthis
reporf, OMB considers the effort to complete this task will be comparable to the preparation ofthe
2002-2004 FinaL Report submitted July 21, 2004.
• For the July 2004 CERB report, 41 meetings over 27 months were conducted at 3 hours per meeting
This equates to 123 hours! per dedicated County staff position; 123 hours
*
two dedicated County
staff
=
246 hours for dedicated County staff in-kind support.
• Based on a current average (October, 2011) county government salary, wage, and FICA hourly cost
of $3S.36; 246 hours
*
$35.36
=
$8,698.56 in personnel costs.
• 11 volunteers will be appointed for preparation ofthe Bill No. 32-11 CERB report Volunteers may
request travel mileage reimbursement ($1 0 per meeting) andlor request reimbursement for dependent
care
($30
per meeting).
• From past and current experience, most volunteers do not request operating expense (OE)
reimbursements for travel or dependent care. Presume five of eleven volunteers request travel.
reimbursement, and two ofeleven routinely request dependent care reimbursement, for
41
meetings.
41 meetings
*
(S) volunteer travel reimbursements
=
20S; at $10 meeting
=
$2,OSO
41 meetings
*
(2) volunteer dependent care reimb
=
82 ; at $30 meeting
=
$2.460
Estimated Non-Departmental Account
B/C/C
(OE) reimbursements
==
${SI 0
3
ECONOMIC SUMMARY
The Department ofFinance notes:
Whereas the purpose ofB
ill
32-1 ] is a comprehensive sunset review of the numerous
Boards, Committees, and Commissions and their potential consolidation, there is no impact to the
County's economy. This conclusion assumes that the purpose ofthe legislation is the possibility of
consol idating these advisory bodies rather than eliminating them.
The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: David Platt, Department
ofFinance; Beth Gochrach, and Sonetta Neufville,
Offices
of the County Executive; Bryan Hunt and
Lori O'Brien, Office of Management and Budget.
JAH:bh
excludes
CERB volunteer hours and ad hoc interviews with County employees
and
persons familiar with
BICIC
operations.
2
the CERB appointed under Bill No.
32~
11 must develop scenarios for reduction ofCounty staff time used
to
support
B/C/C
operations of 25%, 50%, and 75%.
This
was not required
in
previous CERB or Committee
on
Committees reports.
3
OCEX
OMB staff estimate of average meeting times during preparation of the July 2004 Final Report.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
/
Statement of Art Brodsky
Member, Montgomery County Library Board
Montgomery County Council Hearing on Bill 32-11
October 25, 2011
President Ervin and members of the Council,
I'm
Art
Brodsky, a member of the Montgomery County Library Board. Thank you for the opportunity
to discuss briefly the legislation surrounding the evaluation of the county's boards, committees and
commissions.
At the outset let me make two preliminary points.
First, the record of last week's hearing on bill 29-11 is filled with testimonials to the good works that
citizens boards do. I won't attempt to repeat that here, although I fully support the sentiments
expressed.
Second, of the two bills introduced on the topic, the one under consideration today, 32-11 is the more
preferable. At a minimum, it allows for boards, committees and commissions to justifY their existence
before consigning them to the scrap heap.
The larger question is whether either bill is warranted, based on either the purported cost of the boards,
committees and commissions, or on the basis of their missions.
Certainly the headlines surrounding the Council analysis were sensational -- "free advice costs $1.4
million," read one. That $1.4 million figure appears to be the basis for at least some of the legislation
here, yet I can fmd no justification for it.
It
may be there, but the methodology is obscure, yet appears
to be dependent on estimates of staff time for those board which do not have their own budgets -- and
the Library Board is one of those.
How much does the Library Board cost the County? I don't know, and neither do you. I do know that
we provide citizen input to the Library Department and connections to local libraries and that we don't
cost any money. We don't even print up copies of agendas. We serve a different purpose from the
Friends of the Library. The Friends raise money to help supplement the Library budget, and do it well.
The Board and our subcommittees in local library branches help the Library Department and agency
managers determine the effectiveness of policies, whether the branches meet the needs of the local
community and suggest improvements.
From the official county estimates, I do know that the figures for Parker Hamilton's time on line 37 of
the Sept. 2 memo are not correct. There are no subcommittees that meet 10 times yearly. I don't know
how the bottom line was calculated. In fact, there is no estimate of what the Library Board, or any
other non-budget Board costs the County. Is the time estimate based on Director Hamilton's annual
salary calculated on a per-hour basis for a 40-hour week?
One of the hallmarks of Montgomery County government is the
to engage with county
residents. In a couple of weeks, at least one, possibly more, Library Department staff vvill attend a
meeting of the Greater Olney Civic Association to explain vvhat's going on with our library.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Art
Brodsky testimony
Oct. 25, 2011
Page 2
If you count Director Hamilton's time attending Library Board meetings, should you also start looking
at other times when staff meet with residents after working hours? When I was GOCA president, there
was a staff member from the Planning Board at every meeting. Do you want to count that time also?
Whether attending official Boards, Committees and Commissions, or attending unofficial civic events,
County government staff perform a valuable service. Some Boards are advisory, as is the Library
Board. Some are adjudicatory. Some have budgets. Some don't. But all help to connect County
government to the residents of Montgomery County.
\!!J
I~I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.7.".
Paulette Dickerson
9511 Gwyndale Dr
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-565-2166
pdickerson@his.com
TESTIMONY ON BILL 32-11
October 25,2011
50 years ago there were 165,000 people in Montgomery County. Now the population of
each of the five Council Districts far exceeds that number.
That is why the past proliferation of Boards, Committees and Commissions made some
amount of sense. Each citizen advisory board gives the County Executive and the
County Council a clearer idea of how issues affect the populace.
They are conduits through which information and opinions flow smoothly both ways for
elected officials and for an ever growing population. The cost of these bodies is not as
much as the cost of paid commissions and the citizens who serve are well qualified in
terms of competence and experience.
Boards, Committees, and Commissions are a vital part of representative government in
Montgomery County.
We all believe that the body on which we sit is important and we are all correct. At the
same time there are too many of us at the table (75 or so, down from 88 in 2003). Some
bodies serve overlapping needs, areas, populations or purposes.
I spent the weekend slogging through the Committee Evaluation Review Board (CERB)
report from 2004. There are a couple of pages attached from the Executive Summary.
Among CERB's recommendations in 2004 were:
-to have a line item in department budgets for the staff costs of boards
-to make sure that all boards communicate effectively with stakeholders
-to combine some boards when their areas of concern overlap
-to have sunset provisions for advisory boards so that they can be dissolved if
their mandate is no longer viable or appropriate
Right now you, as Councilmembers, have an opportunity to decide what you want to
have happen with Boards, Committees and Commissions in this county.
It is a quiet time.
We don't know how bad the revenue stream will be for the upcoming year
so
we can
look forward hopefully to the "not-sa-bad",
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1
"".,
...
Paulette Dickerson
9511 Gwyndale Dr
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-565-2166
pdickerson@his.com
In six months, when the CERB interim report is due, we will be in the middle of budget
season. There's not so much good news for either the CIP or for the Operating
Budgets. MCGEO is already heating up the rank and file on health care payments and
other employee issues.
Right after that we start to consider the fall elections .
. By the time CERB issues its final report next year we may have a new County
Executive with new priorities and the officers and committee members of the Council
will certainly be shuffled around.
If you can choose a path now, even if you must refine it later, some of the chronic
problems with citizen advisory boards could be solved.
Or five years from now we could be looking at a new incarnation of CERB trying to
determine how to deal with tile cost, purpose and proliferation of boards again.
Thank you.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
~ft~
't2-c::~~
'Orot
reapply to the same
B/c/C,
to encourage wider participation and diversity on each
B/CIC.
5. Training
-
The CoC, and now the CERB ten years later, found a need for better
training for staff, chairs and
B/c/C
members on a variety of issues from ethics to'best
practices to running effective meetings. The County has recently implemented a
formalized training program for
B/c/C
chairs, members and staff liaisons. The
CERB applauds these efforts and recommends the program have permanent funding
and that program attendance be required to continue to serve on a
B/CIC.
6. Staffing
-
The level and type of support provided by Staff Liaisons varies widely
among
B/CIC.
Quality staffmg is a consistent factor among effective Boards. 'The
CERB recommends that the County consolidate
B/c/C
staffing at the Department
level, where possible. This should facilitate communication between
B/CIC
and lead
to other efficiencies.
Budgeting
There is no consistent policy within the County departments and
agencies for budgeting the true cost of staff support. A 2002 study found that
B/CIC
averaged 77+ hours of staff time per month using the equivalent of 37 full-time staff
positions. The County is spending almost $2.1 million on supporting the
B/c/C
structure. Although the CERB feels this money is well spent, the costs should not be
hidden within Departmental budgets. The CERB recommends that each County
department and agency include a separate line item in their annual Operating Budget
for
B/CIC
support. This open disclosure of the actual costs of
B/c/C
support should
lead departments to consolidate staff support and provide the County Executive and
County Council with the true cost when new
B/CIC
are considered.
8. Removal
-
The CERB recommended in June 2003 that the Montgomery County Code
be changed to accommodate a uniform removal policy for all
B/CIC.
The new policy
would authorize the removal of members by the appointing authority for certain
specific circumstances and would establish a process for removal of a member at the
request of a majority of a committee's members.
An
appeals process was also
recommended.
9.
Effectiveness
-
Overall, the CERB found that most
B/CIC
are very effective in
meeting their defined missions. Effectiveness results from the combination of general
issues affecting all
B/c/C
and very specific issues for each committee. The CERB is
making general recommendations for all
B/c/C
and specific recommendations for
each committee to improve each committee's effectiveness.
10.
Communications
-
The CERB found a wide discrepancy among the
B/c/C
with
regard to communicating with the public, the media, elected officials, other
B/c/C,
and each
BICIC's
own members. Most
B/CIC
and County staff are not taking
advantage of new technologies and sharing information and best practices. The
CERB is recommending that the Department of Technology Services create a
B/CIC
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
"
.':~'
"
..
­
Master Plan to utilize new technologies, including an electronic Annual Report
template for all
BICIC.
1.
Sunset Provision
-
The County does not have an effective means to assess
periodically the purpose and mission of
B/CIC.
The CERB convenes every 10 years
and can only view a snapshot of a
B/CIC.
There is no automatic mechanism to
prevent a
BICIC
from continuing with a mission that is no longer relevant. As new
issues emerge, new
BICIC
are created and the
B/c/C
system could eventually expand
beyond the County's ability to support it. The CERB recommends establishing sunset
provisions for those
B/c/C
that are not mandated by State or Federal government.
The CERB is also recommending specific criteria to evaluate the renewal of a
BICIC
andlor the establishment of a new
B/c/C.
In
addition to the above-described findings regarding the entire
B/c/C
system, the
CERB's two-year study found numerous issues affecting individual
B/CiC
performanc\!. The
CERB is making the following specific recommendations for the
full
attention and action of
the County Executive and the County Council:
• Alcoholic Beverages Advisory Board
-
Needs to shift advisory focus and reporting
lines to the Department of Liquor Control.
• Alcohol
&
Other Drug Abuse Advisory Council
-
Merge with Mental Health
Advisory Committee into Behavioral Health Committee to align with the Department
of Health and Human Services' current organizational structure.
• Advisory Committee on Consumer Affairs
-
Discontinue as formal
B/C/C;
volunteers will continue to support Division mission.
• Area Recreation Boards
-
All
5
area Boards should be dissolved and area
recreation issues handled by the existing County-wide Recreation Board and by the
Regional Service Centers'Citizens Advisory Boards.
• Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board
-
Merging all Agricultural Boards
into one will provide a stronger voice and better coordination on Agricultural issues.
• Rustic Roads Advisory Committee
-
Can serve as a sub-committee ofthe merged
Agricultural Boards.
• Agricultural Advisory Board
-
Merge with Agricultural Preservation Advisory
Board and Rustic Roads Advisory Committee.
• Cable Communications Advisory Committee
-
Revise its name and mission to
bring it up-to-date; revised mission should include advising the Department of
Technology Services as well as the County Executive and Council on broader
technology issues, not just cable.
• Committee for Ethnic Mfairs
-
Study merger with Committee on Hate Violence
and the Partnership Board for Victims of Hate/Violence - 3
B/c/C
may not be
needed.
5