Discussion and possible direction regarding the adoption of meeting procedures for the Cochise County Board of Supervisors.

Tom Crosby, Vice-Chairman, presented this item. Vice-Chairman Crosby highlighted delays in adopting Board of Supervisors rules under ARS 11-251 and stressed the need for clarity and adherence to parliamentary procedures. Vice-Chairman Crosby distributed a booklet on parliamentary procedures and discussed organizational issues, criticized the inclusion of a County Administrator position and the absence of the County Attorney on the organizational chart. He also raised concerns about debate limitations and the consent agenda's impact on public participation.

The Board and staff discussed the process for public comments on consent agenda items, clarifying whether items need to be pulled for discussion. It was confirmed that a member of the public can request to speak on multiple consent agenda items, but supervisors must pull an item off for separate discussion if necessary. The Chairman has discretion over public comment time limits, ensuring speakers do not abuse the process by repeating previous statements. The conversation also touched on ARS 38-431.01, allowing board members to respond to public criticism within legal boundaries.

Vice-Chairman Crosby presented his perspective on the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the County Attorney’s office. He emphasized that Board staff should only interact with the County Attorney through meetings with the full Board. He argued that attorneys do not have supervisory authority over the Board. Additionally, he raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest when the County Attorney deals with matters involving both the Board and the State Attorney General due to the differing chains of command.

The Board and staff discussed concerns regarding the role of the County Attorney in relation to the Board of Supervisors. Vice-Chairman Crosby argued that the County Attorney does not have supervisory authority over the Board and raised concerns about past failures in communication and oversight. The Board also questioned whether the County Attorney has enforcement power over open meeting laws, suggesting the issue should be clarified. The Board members acknowledged the need to revisit and update outdated organizational charts and agreed that some of these concerns might need to be addressed in a separate work session.

The Board and staff's discussion focused on concerns regarding open meeting laws, past accusations, and the enforcement of rules within the Board. A main issue raised was the ability of Board members to discuss related matters beyond the strict wording of agenda items without being accused of violations. The conversation also highlighted frustrations over past instances where certain speakers were allowed or denied the chance to speak, as well as concerns about how board leadership handled decisions. Possible solutions were explored, including adding provisions that allow for the temporary removal of a chairperson if they are perceived to be acting unfairly.

The Board and staff discussed the need to establish clear and enforceable rules for their meetings, considering options such as Robert’s Rules of Order and other structured rule systems. There was debate about whether to adopt an existing parliamentary guide or create a custom set of rules tailored to their needs, with a preference for a numbered rule system for clarity and transparency. Concerns were raised about overly rigid procedures potentially obstructing efficient discussions, while others emphasized the importance of having mechanisms to ensure order and accountability. Key topics included defining meeting protocols, limiting interactions between staff and the County Attorney’s office, and reevaluating the role of a County Administrator. The discussion acknowledged that while a structured rule set is necessary for fairness and legal compliance, it should also remain practical and not overly bureaucratic. The Board agreed to continue working on a draft of the rules. 

The Board and staff discussed the need to draft new rules and debated the process for doing so. It was suggested that individual members propose rules, which would then be compiled and refined. Concerns were raised about the timeline for drafting rules, with some members advocating for a methodical approach. The idea of rescinding an existing Resolution 14-79 was debated, with some preferring to wait until the new rules were in place. A follow-up work session was scheduled for March 27th, 2025 to continue these discussions.