Making an Appointment with the Community Board

In my , I described some qualities Community Board members should possess, but closed with this tantalizing assertion: the problem with Community Boards isn’t who IS on the Board, but who’s NOT on the Board.

Expanding the talent pool of capable members should be a top priority for Boards. But there are two major constraints or filters that sometimes keep the best potential members away.

Appointment

First, Boards do not choose their members; politicians appoint them. There are issues with this: 

• Councilmembers nominate, and Borough Presidents appoint, only known quantities with demonstrated records of community leadership.  This usually results in highly motivated, qualified board members.  But it can also limit the available pool of candidates.
• Although anyone interested in board membership can submit an application for board service, such ‘wild cards’ - who might bring new energy, new ideas, and new leadership - are rarely appointed.
• When only ‘known quantities’ get appointed, and new leaders are not sought out, the needs of large parts of the district can go unknown and unrepresented. In my District, thousands of community members live in several large housing projects. Yet no Board members live in any of them. Despite the Charter mandate to fill all , a huge bloc is theoretically unrepresented.
• ‘Known quantities’ can be overcommitted, and become ‘no-shows.’ For every ‘no-show’, 10 worthy candidates would serve if they had an elected official’s ear.
• The nominator/appointer may expect loyalty, not independence. While not necessarily a problem, history demonstrates that when members prefer their conscience to the Beep’s wishes, purges can follow.
• Board membership can be a springboard for future office. This attracts candidates for reasons other than altruism. This is not fatal; someone looking to make a splash can add a lot…until after Election Day, when they can become ‘no-shows.’  
• ‘No-shows’ often slip quietly off the Board after a term or two; they resign, are not reappointed, or are removed by the Board itself. This turnover is disruptive, as the influx of rookies requires constant re-education. 

I would like our elected officials to consult with the Board leadership when it comes to nomination and appointment. I think if the Boards themselves had an advisory role in choosing their own members, new leaders could be more easily identified, the representation would be fairer across the District, there would be a lower risk of dead wood, and we would have less turnover.

The next post will discuss the second constraint or filter on membership: the practical limits on volunteerism.