CommitteeThink

During last week’s meeting, the Metro Council discussed and ultimately deferred a proposal to create a committee charged with identifying and vetting applicants for the Capital Area Transit System (CATS) Board. The Advocate has a good background piece on the events that led up to the discussion. It’s good the Council deferred this proposal as it is a bit short-sighted and may be addressed in a better manner.

Why Just CATS? The first issue is the limited scope of the proposal as written. Why are we only concerned about applicants to the CATS Board? Sure, they recently received a massive infusion of operating funds in the form of a recently passed property tax, but does that actually translate into increased scrutiny? Looking at my own property tax bill, I’m giving the Recreation and Park Commission (BREC) $129.85, the Parish Library $99.72, and CATS $98.05 on an annual basis. So from a strictly financial perspective, why are we only worried about properly vetting CATS Board applicants? It seems very reactionary. The recent issues with the Alsen/St. Irma Lee Fire Department should provide sufficient proof that problems can happen with even our smallest Boards and Commissions. If the Council does want to establish a separate committee, make sure it addresses applicants for all Boards and Commissions.

Internal or External? Community groups such as Together Baton Rouge (TBR) have already been identified as possible external surrogates for the purpose of vetting board applicants. The problem is, with all the good work TBR does, there are plenty of people in the community who don’t agree with their positions on a number of different issues. To their credit, TBR has indicated no desire to serve as a surrogate committee and has stated they would not make recommendations on applicants, but let the applicants’ answers stand on their own. On the internal side, creating a sub-committee comprised of members of the community is going to be just as rife with political maneuvering as we already see in the current appointment process. Let’s save the maneuvering for the elections. In short, if the Metro Council does pursue this, the identified committee should be internal and comprised of members of the Metro Council, similar to the way the Finance and Executive Committee once worked.

Reasonable Timeframe? An indirect issue that the Council raises is that the number of applicants for some positions gives the Council little time to adequately consider each candidate. This seems to have a fairly easy fix: lengthen the time between the deadline for applications and when the Council will vote on them. If a week doesn’t seem to be enough time, then extend the time the Council has to consider the applicants to two weeks or even a month.

I do agree that it seems the Council does not or cannot devote adequate time to investigate the applicants for Board and Commission vacancies. Based on the above points, the Council should consider extending the time between the deadline to file an application and when the Council will vote to appoint. In that intervening period, the Council should convene an internal public sub-committee composed of Council Members to scrutinize the applicants for all Board and Committee vacancies. That committee can then provide a formal recommendation to the Council on each vacancy. As a bonus, this should cut down on the incredibly lengthy process the Council currently uses to vote on appointments during regular Council meetings.

The Council will take up this issue a week from today at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on March 27th. You can catch it live starting at 4PM at City Hall or on Cox Channel 21.