UPDATE: The Chapel Hill Town Council maintained its 5-4 vote totals during its work session held on Monday, Dec. 2, and approved the disbanding of eight additional advisory boards during a second reading of the measure.
The Chapel Hill Town Council approved the elimination of one community advisory board — the Community Policing Advisory Committee — at its Wednesday night meeting, while a second vote to eliminate more fell one vote short of eliminating eight more.
Council members voted 8-1 in favor of cutting the policing committee, which was created by resolution and was reviewed separately by town staff, with Council Member Adam Searing — the liaison to the group — being the lone vote against. Council Member Amy Ryan, Council Member Elizabeth Sharp and Chapel Hill Mayor Jess Anderson joined Searing to vote against the elimination of the other boards, which meant the measure fell short of a two-thirds majority required by state law. The measure will return to the council at a future meeting, where only a simple majority will be needed to pass it.
The actions are part of a review requested by some council members and conducted by town staff for the last two years, with discussions of reframing or eliminating resident-filled advisory boards ebbing and flowing for much longer in the local government. During council deliberation, each member agreed the boards are not functioning as intended between providing equitable levels of feedback from residents and seeing their scope of work misinterpreted or deemed redundant from their initial charges.
Like the other boards recommended by staff on Wednesday for elimination, much of the Community Policing Advisory Committee’s original charge from 2011 is now reflected in the town’s police operations and core principles. In addition to that committee, the other advisory boards facing elimination are:
- Parks, Greenways, and Recreation Commission (first formed in 1977)
- Chapel Hill Public Library Advisory Board (1980)
- Human Services Advisory Board (1982)
- Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board (2004)
- Cultural Arts Commission (2008)
- Environmental Stewardship Advisory Board (2013)
- Housing Advisory Board (2013)
- Transportation and Connectivity Advisory Board (2013)
Wednesday’s vote came after a prior work session of the council that included a review of those boards and the inefficiencies facing both their work and recommendations to council members. Chapel Hill staff said their review reflects a “scope creep” to where boards of volunteers now have their work overlapping with funded positions within the local government. The town also spends around $120,000 annually to cover the responsibilities of keeping up with the boards and commissions’ meetings — and staff run into confusion with advisory volunteers who think their recommendations directly correspond with changes in town operations.
But the root cause of the review, and root issue of the board’s current existence, is that they are not reflective of Chapel Hill’s population. Rebecca Buzzard, the town’s community engagement manager, said there have been equity concerns around advisory boards since the last group were created in 2013. Despite numerous efforts to lower barriers to participation — offering free meals, child care options, language services and more — there has not been any significant increase in diversity.
“As we know from our equity work across town systems,” Buzzard said, “inserting equity band-aids on inherently inequitable structures does not — and can not — make them equitable.”
Instead of advisory boards on those topics, the proposal by Chapel Hill staff is to rely on employee-led, equitable engagement of community members to receive feedback on projects and desired priorities, as well as planning ad hoc working groups with limited scopes and lifespans to help improve efficiency and results.
“We’re proposing these as alternatives to the traditional advisory boards because we know that they can deliver better outcomes for equitable engagement,” said Buzzard, “and meet the interest around good stewardship, clear roles and responsibilities. It’s important to note that advisory board members would not lose their ability to participate in public processes — all residents can speak at council meetings, send written comments, attend public information meetings, and participate in town-wide engagement events.”
Some of the council members who voted against the wider-spread elimination advocated for improving the scopes of the existing boards to help achieve those results. Searing, Sharp and Ryan all expressed interest in another work session to brainstorm ideas and begin crafting the framework for those groups to still operate together under a revised mission.
“I support the deep-dive we’ve done, and thank staff for all the hard work that they’ve done,” said Ryan, who is the mayor pro tem and a veteran of Chapel Hill’s advisory boards. “From discussions with some other members, I think we’re not all that far from a reorganization we can all agree on — sunsetting some [boards] and giving tasks and guardrails to whatever remains. Before we take that step, I think we need another chance to talk together.”
But many of the council members who voted for the measure Wednesday said the boards’ problems faced root issues of inequity and scope creep that could not be solved by a simple restructuring. Council Member Karen Stegman, who was one of the elected officials who supported the 2022 petition sparking this latest review of advisory boards, said the underlying issue is much more about the systems of power that lead to voices being marginalized in the advisory process.
“This is not about not having engagement, not having input — it’s about having more and more diverse members of our community,” said Stegman. “I feel like we’ve gotten to a place where we more or less agree that our board structure as it is doesn’t work and doesn’t serve the purpose we want to achieve from engagement. We have tried for at least 10 years to try them more equitable. It’s a structural issue.”
Council Member Paris Miller-Foushee, who was the primary sponsor of the petition, said she has served on advisory boards and tried to equitably recruit residents to join them — but systemic challenges limit people’s opportunities to participate. She said she often thinks about the people who cannot choose to clock out of a job or leave their work stations in order to voluntarily participate in meetings.
“I don’t want to go around in these circles again — we’ve been doing this for a year and some change,” Miller-Foushee said of holding another discussion session on whether to eliminate or reform the boards under consideration. “The presentation by staff is really a reflection of my interests, and I’m in support of that.”
Even if all eight boards recommended are eliminated, the town would still retain several advisory boards not up for debate to be cut. Those are: the Board of Adjustment; the Community Design Commission; the Criminal Justice Debt Program Advisory Committee; the EZ Rider Advisory Committee; the Grievance Hearing Board; the Historic District Commission; and the Planning Commission. These boards are specific to the town government, and are separate from the appoints Chapel Hill also makes to the advisory boards of Orange County, the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
To watch the full video of discussion and access presentation materials from Wednesday’s Chapel Hill Town Council meeting, click here.
Featured photo via the Town of Chapel Hill.
Chapelboro.com does not charge subscription fees, and you can directly support our efforts in local journalism here. Want more of what you see on Chapelboro? Let us bring free local news and community information to you by signing up for our newsletter.
Comments on Chapelboro are moderated according to our Community Guidelines