Committee address ‘elephant in the room’ with committee overhaul

committee structure,” said member Lorie Floyd. It was Floyd’s resolution at the April county board session which started the review process.

She said she felt there were some things that could be changed now, but said they may see other things as they go through the planning process.

A suggestion was made for Mildbrand to make a report to the county board and then ask for comment and if the full board even needed to vote.

Mildbrand noted that they couldn’t just have a wideranging discussion at the board meeting because the public has a right to know what the board is going to be talking about so that they can be present to give input in a specific area.

Several voting and ex-officio members noted that they needed to resolve the question of the committees in order to move forward with the planning efforts.

“We keep coming back to the same stuff over and over,” said health director Michelle Cahoon, who is a non-voting member of the committee.

“This committee thing has us so bogged down. That is the elephant in the room and it has been for the past two years. We need to solve that problem,” Mildbrand said. He said he felt they could present resolutions with vague enough wording to get direction without tying the hands of the committee.

“We have to be very careful,” said county board chairman Jim Metz noting they are going to be bound by the direction set in the draft resolutions.

It was noted that county board members had been previously surveyed to start the strategic planning process to identify strengths and weaknesses of the county. In those surveys, the overwhelming majority of board members had expressed support for keeping the current committee structure largely intact.

County board member Chuck Zenner, who was attending the meeting as an audience member, noted that he felt that survey provided the direction the committee was seeking.

Upon further discussion, committee members reached a consensus that the board’s feedback for the strategic planning process had favored keeping the existing committee structure largely intact.

“I think we have sufficient information. I think there was a clear direction,” Mildbrand said after taking into account the initial surveys.

“What is your plan now? What is the direction you want to see next?” asked human services director Suzanne Stanfley, a non-voting member of the committee.

Fellow non-voting member highway commissioner Ben Stanfley, said the super committees are basically off the table. He wanted to make sure that is how everyone else saw it as they proceeded.

With a consensus to look at ways to improve the existing committee structure rather than proposing a handful of super committees, committee members will be looking ahead in future meetings with focusing on the strategic planning process.