Sonoma City Council to forgo mayoral commission nominations

Debate over Planning Commission appointments just won’t go away in this town.

At least that’s how it must have seemed Monday when Sonoma City Council members went into their June 6 meeting ready to consider ways to simplify and bring more oversight to the process by which applicants are appointed to city commissions.

And in a 4-1 vote, the Council directed staff toward an entirely new appointment model that would certainly simplify the process – but possibly eliminate oversight of commission appointments entirely.

And it could potentially lead to an entirely new makeup on a host of city commissions by the end of the year.

The current model pits much of the appointment power with the sitting mayor who, together with one other council member, interviews applicants for open commission seats and then brings forward a single nominee for ratification by the Council. The process has resulted in multiple controversies in recent years, as mayoral Planning Commission nominees have increasingly been subject to challenges by other council members who haven’t been part of the applicant-vetting process.

Following an April council meeting in which Mayor Rachel Hundley’s most recent Planning Commission nominee, Lynda Corrado, failed to win approval by the Council, council members at the behest of Councilmember David Cook and Mayor Hundley directed city staff to return with options for revising the City’s methods for commission appointments in an effort to bring transparency to the process. Meanwhile, the Planning Commission moves forward with one seat vacant, and a commission alternate seat vacant.

On Monday, Sonoma City Manager Cathy Capriola presented the Council with three options. The first was a slight variant on the current mayoral nomination model, with a touch more Council oversight. The second would bring review of commission applicants before the full Council for consideration.

But it was the third option that most piqued the Council’s interest – granting each Council member their own appointment to each commission.

Under that model, each commissioner would serve throughout the term of the councilmember who appointed them. Council members would have no say in the appointments made by their colleagues.

According to a staff report, under Option 3, “Appointments would be made annually at a special City Council meeting, open to the public, which would occur early in the year, no later than March 1, following the conclusion of the advertising process.”

If the Council were to ultimately establish this process for commission appointments, city officials could transition to the new model in one of two ways, the report says. “The first is to wipe the slate clean and to have all commission members reapply and anyone else that is interested.” The other transition option would be to take turns making individual appointments as current commissioners’ terms expire. The order of which council member would appoint the next commissioner would be chosen by lottery.

For commissions that have more than five members – such as the Sonoma Planning Commission, which has seven – appointments to the remaining seats would be voted upon by the full Council.

Councilmember David Cook, who voted among the majority for Option 3 to give individual council members their own commission appointments, said his highest priority was to bring more “diversity on commissions.”

“There’s been some talk that it’s hypocritical of me to bring this up,” said Cook, in reference to his insistence in 2014 that he reserved the right to nominate potential Planning Commission appointments as the sitting mayor. “It’s hard being mayor… I don’t want the Mayor (Hundley) to go through this.”

Cook emphasized that the position is “mayor, not dictator of Sonoma.”

Councilmember Amy Harrington also said she was “strongly” in favor of each councilmember making their own individual appointments to commissions. She brushed aside criticisms that under that model, commissioners might feel beholden to vote in ways that would please the council member who appointed them.

“The Planning Commission is our most powerful body after the City Council,” said Harrington, stressing the importance of having a strong commission.

Harrington said she favored the transition method of starting anew, allowing council members to make new appointments, or reappointment incumbents, if and when the new model is adopted.

The Planning Commission is perhaps the most influential body below the City Council and, according to City staff, Sonoma has six more lower commissions, including Design Review and Historic Preservation, Community Services and Environment, Cultural and Fine Arts, Traffic Safety, the Oversight Board, the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Committee and the Tree Committee, though that committee is not subject to Council appointment oversight.

Councilmember Madolyn Agrimonti echoed her support for individual councilmember appointments and stressed the need to abandon the current process of the mayoral nominees.

“I’ve seen mayors slaughtered up here for their decisions,” said Agrimonti, referencing some of the criticisms the public and fellow councilmembers have directed toward mayors for Planning Commission nominations. “What happened to our current Mayor (Hundley) was disgusting.”

Councilmember Gary Edwards was the lone “nay” for Option 3 and the individual councilmember appointments, citing “continuity” on the Planning Commission as a concern with that option’s system of annual appointments and reappointments to all city commissions.

Under the direction of the Council, city staff will return at an upcoming meeting with further options for the council members to consider regarding making individual council appointments to commissions.

Email Jason at jason.walsh@sonomanews.com.