- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In the 7 Apr 2021 Called Board meeting, a draft document titled “Community Capital Projects Oversight Committee (CCPOC) By-laws” is attached to agenda item E1. This CCPOC document seeks to define a new, more effective citizen led oversight committee to better serve RRISD stakeholders. (Attachments are not allowed on the message board so please see the draft document in the 7 Apr 2021 agenda.)
Trustee Bone and I were tasked by the board to develop this draft as we transition away from the “Bond Oversight Committee” charter which has been around for a few years. We’d like to give much credit to COO, Terry Worcester, and his team for assisting us in this process.
The goal of the new charter is to allow for meaningful community oversight of all projects…capital improvement, bond, etc. This committee will report to the board of trustees as defined in the charter under “duties and responsibilities”. The charter seeks to meaningfully empower this committee and addresses topics including “conflicts of interest”, “undue advantage”, “membership”, etc.
The number of citizens appointed to this committee is larger than under the previous bond oversight committee. This charter also sets thresholds of project scope change that would trigger different levels of approval in order for those changes to happen.
Please review the draft and provide input/thoughts here.
Thank you Trustee Bone and Trust Weston for the by-laws. It covers so many topics comprehensively.
The only thing I am pondering is that when a CCPOC member resign or be removed, instead of a trustee making a replacement appointment, how about drawing a name from all the interested community members for the open seat?
And is a four-year term a bit too long?
Thanks for the response Trustee Xiao. I think we should stick with trustee appointments. I also think a 4 year term is a long time. I am open to changing that if others agree.
Thank you for starting this discussion. This is amazing work and will be so helpful to our community once it is approved!
I had a few thoughts and questions:Page 1 – I agree that 4 years seems long, maybe 3 like the SHAC would be better. I agree with Trustee Weston that Trustees should approve as we are in essence asking these people to be our proxy on this committee.
Page 2 – How will trustees be approved by the Board? Will we have nominations and vote like we do for officers if there are more than 2 people wanting to serve? Is there some requirement for Trustee attendance at the meetings like there is for the 14 members?
Page 3 – #8 – Why only 5 votes and not a majority? What actions are you envisioning that might only need 5 of 14 people to approve?
Page 4 – The 3rd Tuesday of the month for staff and Board members means 2 meetings that 3rd week every month. Maybe not an issue, just something to think about.
Quorum is needed to make decisions but then only 5 people are needed to approve some actions. I am just feeling like this needs more detail or explanation. Maybe we could go with a majority of those in attendance for all decision making.
Page 5 – goes to my voting question above from page 3. Are the Tier 1 changes the “actions” you envision on Page 3 duties #8 that only require 5 votes? The Tier 2 changes require 8. I’m guessing it takes 8 for Tier 3 but that is not stated. Does that leave the 5 votes as the rule for this category?
My thoughts in response to Trustee Weir taking the time to dig into this are below. Thank you Pres Weir!
I’m amenable to changing from a 4 year to a 3 year term.
I think this Board and future boards can determine which trustees they wish to have support the CCPOC, much like how the Board determines who will be the trustee rep on the RR Chamber, PIE Foundation, etc. In most situations a consensus can be reached and if not, the body can vote.
I’m not inclined to mandate a trustee attend every CCPOC mtg.
The goal with 5 votes on #8 on page 3 is to set a basic threshold of affirmation in order for this body to approve anything. If only the 2 CCPOC members appointed by one or two trustees is empowered to make decisions, it could be problematic. A threshold of 5 means that members appointed by at least 3 trustees must agree to approve anything. The reluctance to make it a majority of the 14 total members comes from concern about holding up progress if folks are unable to attend a particular meeting for whatever reason. I am curious about Trustee Bone’s thoughts on this, especially with you pointing out that we have a requirement of a quorum needed to make decisions.
I’d appreciate input from staff on your point about meetings being on the 3d Tuesday of the month. Thank you for pointing that out.
Dr Bone,
Do you have any thoughts on Pres Weir’s thoughtful comments?
Are we ready to place this on an agenda for discussion and action?Dear Fellow Trustees,
I am so sorry that this has been the first chance I have had to comment on this draft proposal. I appreciate all the time, effort and thought that went into this proposal by Trustees Bone and Weston. However, I have some concerns as I study it. It seems that a lot of responsbility is given to volunteers. It seems that the commitment level of said volunteers would be significant – way beyond anything we have ever asked of a volunteer previously. Not only hours of commitment, but level of responsibility. They must approve change orders and timelines, do site inspections to “investigate” delays, the list goes on. I feel like this is beyond the scope of a volunteer. I would prefer we cut down on the level of responsiblity and commitment required of these volunteers to a more reasonable oversight role. As I wrap things up with session, I can really dig into this deeper and consider how we could accomplish what we are looking for without burdening volunteers with responsiblities that are not appropriate for unpaid, volunteer work (especially when not elected to do this work).
- The forum ‘Round Rock ISD Trustees Message Board’ is closed to new topics and replies.