Ms. Myers is right. Many of these City and County boards need to be either eliminated or have their purpose better defined. For years the word on the street was when you need something from one of these boards, hire a board member or their relatives. That was especially true with the ARB. Boards can also serve as buffers protecting politicians who want to do favors for constituents but don’t want their fingerprints on the decision.
Now who could possibly think that a board member should be able to represent the interests of their clients before the board upon which they serve? The fiction that has been used in the past is the board member who is making the pitch for their client doesn’t vote on the client’s request. What about very basic conflicts of interest like personal friendships between a board member and the person making the request of the board? What about business benefits either prior or future dealings between the board members and the requester?
It may be that a given board might have some community benefit, but the appearance of conflicts and competing loyalties generally far outweigh any benefit that these boards can provide. Yes, there are occasionally people with no conflicts who serve on these boards and I am sure there are others who do it for the benefit of the community. But, the fact they agree to serve on boards where other members have these glaring conflicts indicts them equally.
The City Council should make zero based board assessments. The presumption should be we do not want them but if we have them they must not be riddled with these board member conflicts. It seems simple enough. If you want to help the community by serving on a board you can’t use the board for personal benefit directly or indirectly.