Mono’s Nix outlines concerns about proposed NVCA advisory committees

Fred Nix memo to Nov. 28 2014 board meeting

Advisory Committees

1.         On the issue of establishing advisory committees

Recommendation 22 from Tom Gazda (this is using the original numbering system) was to re-establish advisory committees.  I could support this recommendation as I think there are pros & cons to using advisory committees and perhaps the pros outweigh the cons.  However, I have a concern about acting on this recommendation at this time as at our meeting of Aug 22, 2014, this Board only “received” Tom Gazda’s recommendations.  Here is what the rest of that resolution said: “recommendations come back in a report from the Efficiency Audit Committee/Staff outlining details of implementation for board direction.”  Further, Resolution #5 from that same meeting says we are to proceed with the 15 recommendations prioritized by the Board “subject to the approval by the Board of the Efficiency Audit Committee/Staff report.”

I have seen no report from the Efficiency Audit Committee/Staff outlining details of implementation.  I certainly have not seen a report that has been approved by this Board AS IS REQUIRED UNDER RESOLUTION #5 of the Aug 22 meeting.  I suspect I am going to be told that what is in our agenda package today constitutes the report I was looking for.  That is unfortunate because what I had anticipated in a report was a more thoughtful look at the wisdom of using advisory committees: the pros and cons (we had some “cons” when we used to have advisory committees); the costs; how many other CAs are structured this way; etc. Instead what we get in our agenda package is the implementation details of Gazda’s recommendation.  Of even more concern, I see that in several cases, in establishing the mandates for these four advisory committees, the mandates specifically require these committees to implement some or all of Tom Gazda’s recommendations – example, the Finance & Admin advisory committee has a mandate to recommend an Asset Management Plan to the Board.  (To be clear on this: I don’t have a problem with the NVCA having an Asset Management Plan. But we were told that before we implemented any of the 26 recommendations, THERE WOULD BE A REPORT back to the Board. We have not received that report.)

2.         Structure/Composition of advisory committees

I have concerns about the way these advisory committees are being structured.  We have 4 Board members on each of 3 advisory committees, 2 Board members on the HR committee, plus the chair, vice-chair and past chair. That is 17 Board members. By my count, there are 26 Board members on the NVCA. So what are we doing?  Putting 17 members on committees and telling the other 9 that they don’t really count?

When we used to have advisory committees, all Board members sat on one of the committees.

Now I am not saying I know the best way to proceed here. But I will say it is this type of issue that I had expected to be in a report on Gazda’s recommendations that should have come back to the Board.

But to pursue my concern, lets do a “thought experiment” (Einstein): suppose some year in the future we had a badly split Board – 17 people in Camp A and 9 people in Camp B. Clearly, by having the Board appoint people to these advisory committees, Camp A would ensure that all of its people were on committees and no one from Camp B was.  You could argue that this is the way democracy works but I think in the case of the NVCA this would just guarantee that recommendations reaching the Board level did not reflect the full membership of this watershed.

3.         Selection of members of the board for various committees

As I understand what is before us, the Board will select which members sit on which advisory committees. My question is “how?”  Will there be an election? If so, do we follow the election procedures as sat out in our current procedural rules?

These issues have to be thought of or there is going to be confusion in the future. (Again, the need for a thoughtful report to the Board thinking out all these issues would have been helpful.)  I think there are going to be problems if we think that, at the first meeting of the new year, we go thru the election process for a Chair, a vice-Chair (& possibly a second vice-chair) and then have elections for the 14 other members who sit on various committees. This will take hours.

4.         (Minor point) Board members sitting on more than one committee

I think the rules should make it clear that a Board member can only sit on one advisory committee. Otherwise we face the risk of giving too much influence to a small group of Board members.

5.         Stalemate

As I understand the rules being proposed, decisions by each advisory committee will be made by simple majority vote. That works fine for the HR committee where there will be 5 Board members present. But in the case of the other 3 committees, there are only 4 members present which (I think) is just inviting situations where a stalemate will be the outcome.

6.         Planning & Engineering Advisory Committee mandate (1)

I have concerns with the part of the mandate that suggests this committee shall “Review the planning fee schedule annually with staged implementation of improvements to better align with prevailing market practices.”  I have no problem with reviewing our planning fees on a regular basis. But I am concerned about this direction to align them with prevailing market practices. First, what does this mean?  Second, is it different than the policy that currently governs our planning fees (that they pay for a certain percentage of the planning department’s costs)?  I think what is happening here is that not only are we establishing standing committees but that indirectly we are attempting to implement another of Tom Gazda’s recommendations. Whether I am correct or not, I don’t think the process of establishing advisory committees should (a) change NVCA policies/practices or (b) pre-determine what the outcome of a review of planning fees (or anything else) should be.

To elaborate, I don’t mind that we tell this committee to look at how well our policies are aligned with the CALC report because we, as the NVCA, have an obligation to do this. But I do mind when we establish mandates for “advisory” committees and pre-judge what that advice should be.

7.         Planning & Engineering Advisory Committee mandate (2)

I have concerns when we establish the mandate of this committee to (a)  review solicited and unsolicited presentations by developers (etc), (b) participate as required in meetings with advocacy groups, and (c) participate as required in meetings with developers, investors and commercial interests. To be clear, I don’t mind this advisory group doing this. My concern is whether or not this cuts the rest of the Board out from hearing these parties. Are 4 Board members going to  be the only members of the NVCA that hear from all these interested parties?  I realize the mandate does not specifically say this, but I think there is a danger that this would be the practical impact.